Tax Writer Taxwriter Ltd
Columnist
Share this content
parliament
iStock_IakovKalinin_parliament
Tags:

Huge Finance Bill will test Parliamentary scrutiny

by
21st Mar 2017
Tax Writer Taxwriter Ltd
Columnist
Share this content

Tax experts have confirmed the Finance Bill 2017 is the largest ever UK financial bill in history, covering 767 pages with 313,031 words.

Why?

Philip Hammond’s Budget on 8 March was the slimmest many tax experts can remember, and it is now even thinner as the proposal to raise the rate of class 4 NIC has been scrapped. So why have we been landed with such a mammoth Finance Bill 2017?  

The answer is that many of the measures in this bill were proposed by George Osborne in the 2016 Budget or even earlier. It takes some time to work into draft law complex anti-avoidance provisions and to formulate completely new taxes and reliefs.

Not relevant

Large chunks of the Finance Bill hold little interest for advisers of small businesses and individuals. Unless your client produces sugary drinks, you can ignore the new soft drinks levy (35 pages). Where your corporate groups pay interest of less than £2m you can skip the 156 pages on the new corporate interest restriction. Similarly, 116 pages on carried-forward corporate losses can be consigned to the budgie cage where if the company’s turnover is less than £5m.

However, this law is important to larger businesses. I hope the House of Commons Finance Bill committee will find the time to properly scrutinise every new piece of anti-avoidance law, and carefully weigh the increased complexity against the need to prevent the loss of tax revenue.

Important stuff

There is a lot of law relevant to smaller businesses in Finance Bill 2017, you just need to know where to look.

IR35

The IR35 rules for contracts in the public sector (Schedule 1) contains new conditions including: Deadlines for providing information, fraudulent information, and the definition of a public authority, which AccountingWEB will cover in a later article.

Making Tax Digital

Sections 120 to 122 and schedule 25 outline the rules for digital record keeping to facilitate Making Tax Digital (MTD) for businesses, which will replace the annual self assessment tax return. However, much of the detail on the mechanics of how the data must be transmitted to HMRC and how tax elections will be made, will be set out in regulations, which are not published alongside this bill.

I will look at the MTD requirements in more detail in another article, but two points to note are:

Estimated figures

New TMA 1970 schedule 1A, para 13(6) which concerns digital record keeping and reporting says that information provided in the updates and in the end of period return must meet standards of accuracy and completeness specified by HMRC, and failure to meet those standards will be treated as a failure to comply with regulations. In other words; providing estimated figures will not be acceptable.

Penalties

A penalty of up to £3,000 may be imposed for not keeping electronic records and preserving those electronic records for a specified period (New TMA 1070 Sch1A para 12(4))

Cash basis

The conditions for the cash basis for property businesses do not appear to have changed from the earlier draft legislation. The cash basis will be the default accounting treatment for individual landlords with rental income of no more than £150,000 per year, but as soon as their property income crosses that threshold they must not use the cash basis (new ITTOIA 2005, s 271A(4)). 

Trading and property allowances

The rules have been amended for the two new £1,000 allowances for property income and miscellaneous trading income. These allowances now can’t be used by a participator in a close company against income received from that company. Similar anti-avoidance rules prevent employees or their relatives, from using the allowances against income received from the employing company.

Consultations

Just in case we didn’t have enough to read with 1,210 pages of Finance Bill and notes, HMRC has published four new consultation documents which are relevant to small and medium sized businesses:

What are we waiting for?

We are still waiting for the MTD consultation on complex businesses, which is supposed to cover all companies and large partnerships. This was promised in December 2016, then January and now it seems it won’t appear until “the summer”. I do wonder whether HM Treasury and HMRC are struggling to find the form of words which justifies quarterly reporting under MTD for larger businesses and corporates.

Tags:

Replies (77)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By DotasScandalDotOrg
21st Mar 2017 14:36

No mention of the infamous "2019 charge on contractor loans" (a.k.a "20 years of retrospective taxes") ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to DotasScandalDotOrg:
rebecca cave
By Rebecca Cave
21st Mar 2017 14:56

Yes it is there, see clause 48 and schedule 16 & 17

Thanks (2)
Maytuna
By DJKL
21st Mar 2017 16:49

Reminiscent of the Ancient Mariner; it will likely stoppeth one in three (arrangements- probably create a few new ones) and an Albatross also has a big bill.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By D V Fields
21st Mar 2017 23:34

Without reading the detail for myself; no estimated figures and a £3,000 fine for not keeping digital records. The Companies Act doesn't require digital records, so this really is beat the small individual up - and kick him some more when he is down! Still no detail about what will actually be required to be submitted on a quarterly basis! Do as I say not do as I do! Although I suppose why should we be allowed to estimate figures when HMRC clearly cannot!

This App is going to do what? Comical.

Thanks (8)
Replying to D V Fields:
avatar
By D V Fields
22nd Mar 2017 13:07

On the one (left) hand HMRC believe quarterly submissions will help tax payers get their tax right and on the other (right) hand MTD's mission in life is to get the alleged tax gap from us low lifes including the Just about Managing (Jam - remember them?), down. 

Some subscribe to the notion that the principle of making tax digital is an excellent and welcome idea, subject to timing, of course! Three figures, one of which is a calculation of the other two; four times a year held on a Tax Account in the cloud; Cutting edge stuff! At a cost of how much? 

Being so keen on the left hand to ensure for our benefit we get our tax right first time everytime they (HMRC) are going to impose penalties for getting it wrong or not keeping our records upto date. For our own good of course you do realise don't you? 

[Hey Gov - don't we need to update the Companies Act - those big companies we are too scared to tackle for some tax (that would solve the tax gap - sorry sorry promise I won't mention that again) - we only require them to maintain adequate accounting records - but we want the low-lifes to do it digitally!  Answer: Stay focused; get the easy pickings! But! Answer: Do you still want your job? Sorry - I have finally shaken off any sense of credibility. Yes those low.. I mean target groups must be brought into line for their own good - they'll thank us one day].

Now where was I? Ah yes - only the right hand matters. It doesn't matter that it doesn't know what the left hand is doing. The left hand is smoke and mirrors.....

[Hey Gov, if we get them to do their quarterly returns based on accounting profits, let's assume accounting profits exceed taxable profits; don't know if it does but let's not cloud the issue with evidence or truth that might cause us to change our view. Answer: You're learning. Well then we could encourage them to pay quarterly, as it will save them getting a hefty tax bill at the end of the year - which we've already said they have said this is a problem to them  ( they really are stupid - unlike us - aren't they?) It's not as if they could save the money in a high interest savings account - our other policies have taken care of that! Answer: You'll go far! We'll get the money in sooner. Result! Actually the penalties are fair - and we should add a cut for ourselves as we are forcing them to be more efficient. Those idiots out there that suggest the £3k ( k is short for thousands) might drive them underground, wherever that is, or out of business - well I mean - what planet are they on? Not ours. Look out our evidence! (Have we got any? Answer: Hold on - we will -- No! No! No! No! Yes!) These "apps" (technical term); where can I get them? I want the free one that allows me to buy something using my phone and the receipt automatically gets coded into my chart of accounts (whatever that is) and appears in the right expenditure column. No! No! We have to ban those - only the ones that put the income in the right place - should be allowed. Let's make sure our approved Apps list is updated appropriately. Can we get the App developers to treat both sales invoices and the cash receipt as "income" - I think they are docile. Someone told me they design these things around what is easy for the programmers - so if we said both were income - we could leave out the bit about whether it was cash or accruals and refer them to that gap thingy those accountants keep banging on about - should we meet a smart alec. So it would be their fault - as always. Can't we do something about that rule of income and expenditure can only be taxed and relieved once- it is old hat? We could implement it in stages. If we allowed the Apps to auto-code expenditure could we get personal expenditure included and then fine them for deliberate tax evasion? Answer: Good point. Yep - allow it. Also could we get them to send us all their data- rather than just a summary! Answer: Keep quiet, that's what we want - we know we're not clever enough yet to understand it - but they don't know that - and for those that don't use an agent we can beat them senseless! Easy pickings! Do we have to get all this past those Committee thingies? Answer: Leave that to me, my cunning plan is working- I tell them this is the richest consultation ever done. They believe me - one even said "Really!"
Who is MTD?]

Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental - all people have been made up.

Thanks (12)
Replying to D V Fields:
avatar
By MM Bookkeeping Services
23rd Mar 2017 09:43

Superb!
This brightened up a rather dull morning for me!

Thanks (0)
Replying to MM Bookkeeping Services:
avatar
By D V Fields
30th Mar 2017 09:32

E666: Hey Guv see those bods are still whinging on that awebby thingy.
Guv: Yeah [***] all of them – what they saying now?
E666: Well I think we may have to update Your Charter.
Guv: I haven’t got one.
E666: No Your Charter.
Guv: Like I said.
E666: No! Our “Your Charter”
Guv: Ours? Oh that – is that still going – that was just set up when it was fashionable – doesn’t mean anything – why?
E666: Well the first one says “respect you and treat you as honest”
Guv: Yeah as if!
E666: But somebody has pointed out that we ask them to confirm that their return is “complete and correct” – well then if we query that their return might be wrong are we not calling them liars?
Guv: Well they are; what’s your problem?
E666: Not all of them!
Guv: Most and anyway we’ll just blame the Apps.
E666: Yeah these Apps are they really going to be free?
Guv: Yeah – Apple and Amazon have bought into it – it was part of our deal!
E666: That was a good deal.
Guv: Well not really they were both insistent.
E666: So is the checking of the accounts being submitted being done by the Apps or the accounting software?
Guv: Not sure. Maybe the App sits on top of the accounting software, virtually speaking, of course, and then does its magic.
E666: What sort of things does it ask? Does it say – "here you’ve missed off those sales invoices again!?"
Guv: Something like that – I think they’ve renamed Siri to Churchill from 1984 by Orson Wells.
E666: Don’t you mean Winston and George Orwell?
Guv: Possibly. Haven’t read any of their books.
E666: Ah! Clever! I get it – the “thought police” and “big brother!”
Guv: Good ay-wot – must admit I thought it was a tall order especially making it free – but they kept emphasising that the Apps would be free. They said they could make some money with some blue sky thinking.
E666: Why Amazon? – Oh! I see! I think they have these server thingies in the sky –so I suspect the Apps are free but you have to pay subscriptions to access it. Clever! Did we factor those costs in?
Guv: Don’t know.
E666: I though you made up £270 figure or whatever it was.
Guv: No
E666: Was it spreadsheet Phil?
Guv: No it was Ernie.
E666: Who’s Ernie?
Guv: Not sure; never met him; but he does all our number crunching. He even predicted I would win £25 on the premium bonds. Don’t know how he knew I even had any but he was right I did win £25. He’s good!
E666: Apparently we got a mention in PMQ’s. Someone asked whether spreadsheet Phil could do a turn. I thought that was rude – after all it is her question time not his. Anyway Mrs M said we had to provide a service to the public. Is this true?
Guv: Well we make out we do – after all we do let punters use our computers to do their tax returns and we do not charge them.
E666: I was thinking. Couldn’t we introduce a stupidity tax?
Guv: That would bankrupt us!
E666: No silly, not for us, for the punters.
Guy: How does that work?
E666: Well those accounting bods reckon our punters are just as likely to miss off expenditure receipts as they are with sales receipts. So we impose a penalty for when they fraudulently understate their profits; so we should charge them a stupidity tax for when they pay us more than they should. After all we have to administer it! It’s only fair.
Guv: I like it. Spreadsheet Phil was looking for some extra dosh.
E666: Back to those Apps. Don’t those accountants upload their TB (that’s a trial balance not a virus) to some tax calculation software program – so will the Apps do this calculation as well?
Guv: Look you ask too many questions – it will all come out in the wash – don’t worry!
E666: Ok yeah thanks. By the way did you manage to get that stain out of your shirt? What’s Brexit?

Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental - all people and organisations have been made up.

Thanks (0)
Replying to D V Fields:
avatar
By MM Bookkeeping Services
30th Mar 2017 09:59

This brightened up another dull morning for me D V Fields, especially after yesterday's webinar ref Agents Services with HMRC - I really don't think they know what they are doing.
By the way, have you read Investment Counselor by Orson Scott Card? Fiction maybe becoming reality?

Thanks (0)
Replying to D V Fields:
avatar
By rogertax
29th Mar 2017 11:08

Thank you so much for taking the time to post your comment. Sadly, I doubt that anyone other than AccountingWeb subscribers and, I hope, Rebecca Cave will read it let alone act upon it. Perhaps, the other Rebecca should be made to read it and Rebecca Cave's articles. The other Rebecca should also be made to let us know how HMRC react when she informs them of the profession's criticisms.

Thanks (0)
Maytuna
By DJKL
22nd Mar 2017 12:04

Well, looks interesting re accuracy of digital records:

"(6) The regulations may provide—
(a) that information provided must meet standards of accuracy
and completeness set by specific or general directions given
by the Commissioners, and
(b) that failure to meet those standards may be treated as a
failure to provide the information, or as a failure to comply
with the requirements of the regulations."

So, rubbish in rubbish out digital records =large fine

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
22nd Mar 2017 13:41

Well there goes my MTD strategy (fling poo data at them for 4 quarters and then do it properly)

However in practice how the heck do they monitor it or decide what is 'accurate' when its supposed to be raw system data, not "polished" year end data.

I am very skeptical HMRC have the ability, manpower or indeed reason to worry too much about the quarterly filth, they are only interested in what is actually reported in taxable income.

HMRC have ended up with a bloodynose every time they have tried to check record keeping standards.

Thanks (2)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By daveforbes
27th Mar 2017 12:01

The income and expenses totals are simply the sum of the quarterly (or more frequent) figures. The year end ("5th") adjustments transmission is adjustments like farmers averaging not for error correction.

Thanks (1)
Replying to daveforbes:
RLI
By lionofludesch
27th Mar 2017 18:10

Rubbish!

Setting aside the possibility of removing drawings, fixed assets and dividends (select as appropriate) from the figures that the client has submitted, the adjustments will certainly include stocks, debtors, creditors, prepayments and accruals for my clients.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By david wilks
27th Mar 2017 18:43

And mine.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By daveforbes
29th Mar 2017 12:02

Putting it terms of the current full self employed tax return pages (for > £83000), the quarterly (or more frequent) transmissions are boxes 15 to 46. The year end transmission does not include boxes 15 to 46. Essentially you will be transmitting page 2 of the se pages in installements and then the rest of the se return as the year end adjustments. So for example if you had inadvertently completed drawings in box 19 (wages and staff costs) in one particular periodic transmission you would need to correct and retransmit that periodic. The year end adjustments transmission is for things like box 72 farmers averaging. For below £83000 it will be based on the short se return, but still the year end and periodic are distinct (equating to page 1 and page 2 ).

Thanks (0)
Replying to daveforbes:
RLI
By lionofludesch
29th Mar 2017 12:22

So where do you put your accruals and stock then ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By daveforbes
29th Mar 2017 13:01

If they aren't part of the tax return they aren't part of mtd. You may wish to produce a balance sheet for your clients but the hmrc really aren't interested in it and never have been. Page 5 of the full self employment pages was always optional (and not in the short version) and now isnt currently in the mtd transmission even as an option. Mtd is sending the tax return in in instalments.

Thanks (0)
Replying to daveforbes:
RLI
By lionofludesch
29th Mar 2017 13:38

Of course accruals and stock are part of MTD !!

Cash accounting isn't mandatory yet. I would dispute that MTD is "sending in the tax return in instalments". It's nothing to do with tax returns. It's everything to do with "making sure the taxpayer is doing his homework".

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By daveforbes
29th Mar 2017 14:23

The data fields in the periodic update transmission API correspond to the income and expense boxes on the tax return. The data fields on the year end adjustment API correspond to the remaining boxes (apart from page 5). This is true for the self employed and land and property pages. I appreciate cash accounting is not mandatory. Under mtd transmissions you specify whether the business is preparing the figures under cash or accruals (as you do by ticking or not ticking box 10 on the se pages.).

There is no specific box for transmitting accruals under mtd as the data fields correspond to the tax return.

My knowledge of the detail of what data are transmitted, in what format and when is extensive. To me it looks like transmitting your tax return in instalments. How much of that is automated will vary. Whether that reduces the tax gap or makes taxpayers do their homework is beyond my knowledge.

Thanks (1)
Replying to daveforbes:
RLI
By lionofludesch
29th Mar 2017 15:09

So you're saying you're in the dark ?

Aren't we all !!

I had imagined it would be summat like RTI - cumulative figures, not four quarters to add together.

But - hey - who knows what tomorrow will bring?

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By daveforbes
29th Mar 2017 15:18

I am not in the dark. I am fortunate (or unfortunate depending on your viewpoint) to be involved with the nitty gritty. I know precisely what must be transmitted and when.

What I do not know what effect it will finally have on the total tax take for the UK.

Thanks (0)
Replying to daveforbes:
RLI
By lionofludesch
29th Mar 2017 15:49

Excellent !

Nice to have an inside view.

So cash accounting is foisted on us?

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By daveforbes
29th Mar 2017 16:06

I think cash basis will become more prevalent if the limit rises to £150,000 (which covers 98% of the self employed) and it is easier to automate (and understand!) but certainly not mandatory. You can currently send in an SA tax return for the self-employed either cash basis on accrual. Just because the frequency of parts the return has gone up to 4 or more times a year under MTD does not change that.

Thanks (0)
Replying to daveforbes:
RLI
By lionofludesch
29th Mar 2017 18:57

Apparently, around a million people file cash basis accounts. I would expect 99% of them to be unrepresented.

Still, from what you say, HMRC are crazier than I thought.

Which was, actually, already quite high on the scale of craziness.

Thanks (0)
Replying to daveforbes:
avatar
By D V Fields
29th Mar 2017 16:15

I do not think many people know that API stands for Application Programming Interface and knowing that will probably not make them any wiser. If you are in that fortunate position of knowing what is being discussed and as you later refer to – have extensive knowledge and know what is required and when - it would be really helpful if you could point us - less informed individuals - to the source of that information. We can of course then make up our own minds. Many thanks.

Thanks (0)
Replying to D V Fields:
avatar
By daveforbes
29th Mar 2017 16:36

Unfortunately there is little or nothing, as yet, in the public domain. Much of it is also written in computer geek language. A lot of our knowledge has been found by experimentally interacting with the HMRC MTD systems. Feel free to PM me.

Thanks (0)
Replying to daveforbes:
avatar
By D V Fields
30th Mar 2017 10:02

Thank you for your reply and honesty. It prompted me to revisit the notes of the recently published Economic Affairs Committee's Draft Finance Act 2017: Making Tax Digital for Business. The Committee (and others too) have urged HMRC to publish its detailed specification as soon as possible (para 105). I, perhaps mistakenly, believed that the need to “finalise” was to “finalise” before releasing – not “we may still make some changes to what we have already given you.” After all the latter is always to be expected.

I wonder how many others, including those on the various committees, may also have thought this. Perhaps more alarmingly is whether there has been an attempt by HMRC and/or the software developers to be less than open about exactly what is available – and why! I think if I were on any of those committees I might wonder whether I had been misled.

I did wonder how some were claiming to have “Compliance Checklists” already available and offering “Compliant and HMRC approved Apps” already. Put it down to either opportunism or a sense of “most likely scenarios” – or a bit of both - not a 95% (guess) certainty.

Thanks (0)
Replying to D V Fields:
avatar
By daveforbes
30th Mar 2017 11:52

It is not finalised. It is detailed in parts, but as yet incomplete and subject to change. I don't think anyone hiding anything in a sinister way. The pilot has not yet started.

Thanks (0)
Replying to daveforbes:
RLI
By lionofludesch
30th Mar 2017 12:09

daveforbes wrote:
. I don't think anyone hiding anything in a sinister way.

Hard to believe. But it'll depend on your definition of "sinister".

Thanks (0)
Replying to daveforbes:
avatar
By North East Accountant
30th Mar 2017 12:51

Dave Forbes - please tell me it's number 1 and not number 2;

1. Any adjustments or amendments to quarterly figures (like drawings in wages or car hp payments in motor expenses etc) can be dealt with in the end of year activity.

2. Re-submission of quarterly updates.

If it's 2 then I fail to see how on earth MTD will work.

Thanks (0)
Replying to North East Accountant:
avatar
By daveforbes
30th Mar 2017 13:36

It is 2. You would re-transmit the periodic transmission(s) that were in error. Could you elaborate on the issues that raises ?

I suppose you could post some aggregated adjusting amount in final "quarter" and re-transmit just that, but that is not really how I understand it should be done.

Thanks (0)
Replying to daveforbes:
RLI
By lionofludesch
30th Mar 2017 13:34

daveforbes wrote:

It is 2. You would re-transmit the periodic transmission(s) that were in error. Could you elaborate on the issues that raises ?

Adding stock and accruals adjustments isn't an error. They are adjustments.

I'm actually quite attracted to a process that will bring the MTD system crashing to the floor. I'm thinking about making each adjustment for stock and accruals separately.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By daveforbes
30th Mar 2017 13:44

I think the question was about drawings incorrectly entered in wages and HP payments in motor expenses.

How do you deal stock and accruals adjustments when completing the self employment pages of the current SA return ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to daveforbes:
RLI
By lionofludesch
30th Mar 2017 15:44

daveforbes wrote:

I think the question was about drawings incorrectly entered in wages and HP payments in motor expenses.

It was about a number of factors.

Quote:

How do you deal stock and accruals adjustments when completing the self employment pages of the current SA return ?

Annually. Along with the rest of the figures.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By daveforbes
30th Mar 2017 14:19

I was really after what you did rather than when. So for example for I am guessing you adjust closing stock and that gives you your figure for box 17. You then enter some adjusting transaction in the books dated on the last day of the period (or the date of the stock check) ? Under MTD you could either not transmit the last "quarter" until that adjustment had been posted, or if already transmitted, post the adjustment transaction and re-transmit.

Thanks (0)
Replying to daveforbes:
avatar
By North East Accountant
30th Mar 2017 15:36

Of course if we done the books quarterly updates should be OK!

Lets say business has done own quarterly update and we come to do end of year activity.

There will be scores of mispostings, errors etc that the client has made requiring correction.

At the minute we do one multiple journal to correct these as a year end adjustment when preparing the accounts.

Under MTD each adjustment will need to be done transaction by transaction and in the quarter it relates to. This is a nightmare.

So even though client has submitted 4 quarterly updates we will need to submit 4 amended quarterly updates (I assume we are allowed) and the end of year activity.

Total filings 9 per annum per business.

Sole trader with rental properties =18 filings per annum.

Really glad government are committed to reducing red tape!

Thanks (0)
Replying to North East Accountant:
RLI
By lionofludesch
30th Mar 2017 15:47

I'm still stunned that we're not submitting cumulative information.

It made error correction simpler for RTI. Why are we taking this step back for MTD?

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By daveforbes
30th Mar 2017 17:02

Part of the reason why RTI works better with cumulative figures (and I was expecting MTD to be the same) is that there is no way under RTI of software knowing what the HMRC already have on their record and I was expecting MTD to be the same.

So for example if I believe the HMRC have received £500 for month 1 and I want the total to be £900 after month 2, transmitting £400 and getting the correct result depends on my assumption about what the HMRC have. As under RTI there is no way of checking what is there and so a system designed around cumulative totals works well and is to a large extent self correcting. When it goes wrong, not having access to what the HMRC believe has been transmitted can be problematical.

Under MTD software is not just transmitting - it is a two way street - it can retrieve what the HMRC have on record, whether posted by the client or the agent.

Depending on the software, I think it will feel more like opening a spreadsheet, making changes and saving rather than the transmission interaction of RTI and SA.

Thanks (0)
Replying to daveforbes:
RLI
By lionofludesch
30th Mar 2017 17:25

daveforbes wrote:

Part of the reason why RTI works better with cumulative figures (and I was expecting MTD to be the same) is that there is no way under RTI of software knowing what the HMRC already have on their record and I was expecting MTD to be the same.

Why don't we know what HMRC have on their record ?

Isn't it us who are sending this stuff in ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By daveforbes
30th Mar 2017 17:49

In a fault free world with no operator or software errors at either end, what the transmitter believes they have sent and what the receiver has on record will indeed be identical. I don't think it would then make a difference whether you send cumulative figures or incremental figures.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By daveforbes
30th Mar 2017 17:03

Part of the reason why RTI works better with cumulative figures (and I was expecting MTD to be the same) is that there is no way under RTI of software knowing what the HMRC already have on their record and I was expecting MTD to be the same.

So for example if I believe the HMRC have received £500 for month 1 and I want the total to be £900 after month 2, transmitting £400 and getting the correct result depends on my assumption about what the HMRC have. As under RTI there is no way of checking what is there and so a system designed around cumulative totals works well and is to a large extent self correcting. When it goes wrong, not having access to what the HMRC believe has been transmitted can be problematical.

Under MTD software is not just transmitting - it is a two way street - it can retrieve what the HMRC have on record, whether posted by the client or the agent.

Depending on the software, I think it will feel more like opening a spreadsheet, making changes and saving rather than the transmission interaction of RTI and SA.

Thanks (0)
Replying to North East Accountant:
avatar
By daveforbes
30th Mar 2017 16:32

I am sure some practices will find efficient ways of doing it all. The way you currently work, at the year end you go through every transaction checking it, producing a journal of adjustments ? Is that a lot less work than checking 25% of them 4 times a year. My job is to try and write software to make the whole process as easy as possible. Who knows, it may all those calling for it to scrapped will get their way. We however can't gamble on that have to write the software anyway !

Thanks (0)
Replying to daveforbes:
RLI
By lionofludesch
30th Mar 2017 17:20

Yes it will be more work.

Think of it this way - if you had four tasks to do on the same job, would you do one task, close down/file away/whatever the job and then take it out again to do the next task ?

Or would you do all four while you had the file open ?

I'd do the latter. Why ? Because it saves time.

Not rocket science.

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
RLI
By lionofludesch
22nd Mar 2017 18:35

DJKL wrote:

Well, looks interesting re accuracy of digital records:

"(6) The regulations may provide—
(a) that information provided must meet standards of accuracy
and completeness set by specific or general directions given
by the Commissioners, and
(b) that failure to meet those standards may be treated as a
failure to provide the information, or as a failure to comply
with the requirements of the regulations."

So, rubbish in rubbish out digital records =large fine

In other words, it's deliberately woolly.

Thanks (1)
By johngroganjga
22nd Mar 2017 13:34

Emperor's new clothes again.

I will say it again. Is it not a democratic outrage for citizens to be fined for not submitting information that serves no purpose in any event - it's not used by them or by HMRC for computing anything - certainly not their tax liabilities.

Yes of course we fine people who don't pay enough tax, or pay it late - and rightly so. But this is something else altogether.

Thanks (10)
Replying to johngroganjga:
RLI
By lionofludesch
22nd Mar 2017 13:40

Other penalties can be avoided but the Government know that some folk won't be able to cope with this and will be obliged to pay the fines.

It's completely unethical but what else would I expect ?

Thanks (4)
Replying to johngroganjga:
By DotasScandalDotOrg
23rd Mar 2017 14:20

Yes - it is new business plan: "maximizing the amount of tax collected" (it's right there on the HMRC website) ...by setting up "customers" so that they fall into all traps HMRC sets and pay all resulting fines. Brilliant!
Of course, in other times and places, this would be called "entrapment", but hey, in good old UK, the end justifies the means...

Thanks (2)
avatar
By steve 12321
22nd Mar 2017 18:15

anyone else wonder if they are in a bad dream? They cannot be serious, surely it's a wind up!

Lets get the message out the taxpayers effected and get some newspaper to fight the cause!

This is not going to help anyone, let alone work.

Met another small practitioner today who is equally dumbfounded by this all too and cannot see how it will be possible to manage this.

Meanwhile, in the landlord world, we had to give notice to a nice family today to leave their family home due to the tax position we landlord are faced with, trying to get on, provide homes and perhaps in time a "pension". No suitable properties appear to be available near to where they want to be for them and their children. they certainly cannot buy the property either...

Thanks (2)
Replying to steve 12321:
RLI
By lionofludesch
22nd Mar 2017 18:30

steve 12321 wrote:

Meanwhile, in the landlord world, we had to give notice to a nice family today to leave their family home due to the tax position we landlord are faced with, trying to get on, provide homes and perhaps in time a "pension". No suitable properties appear to be available near to where they want to be for them and their children. they certainly cannot buy the property either...

Not to worry. The Government doesn't care about poor people who can't afford to buy their own homes.

Perhaps they could rent a duck house off one of the MPs.

Thanks (3)
Replying to steve 12321:
By DotasScandalDotOrg
23rd Mar 2017 11:51

"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing". Stupid men too. It's gonna be a long, painful, slow-motion car crash.

Thanks (1)

Pages