Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
MTD ITSA guidance is not in line with regulations | MTD monster
iStock_neoleo_monster

MTD ITSA guidance is not in line with regulations

by

The guidance for taxpayers released by HMRC is a big step forward in the evolution of Making Tax Digital for income tax self assessment, but the monster is still a work in progress.

30th Aug 2022
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

HMRC has released some guidance for taxpayers on how and when they need to comply with the Making Tax Digital for income tax self assessment (MTD ITSA) regulations, but this guidance deviates from the MTD regulations. 

It is clear that the guidance has not been written by, or for accountants, as some of the terms used will confuse those with accountancy training, and ordinary taxpayers.

This guidance is also at odds with previous HMRC communications regarding MTD ITSA, and at points it doesn’t align with the Income Tax (Digital Requirements) Regulations (SI 2021/1076) or the draft MTD notices made under those regulations.

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 (80)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Tornado
By Tornado
30th Aug 2022 12:07

Thank you Rebecca.

Who exactly are the ignorant imbeciles in charge of this mad project and what have they done with the 3,000 million pounds or so that has been thrown (almost literally it seems) at it.

Incompetence is not a strong enough word to describe their chaotic approach to this complex (and unworkable) project.

It is time for someone to take responsibility for this and do something about it.

I want a refund

Thanks (26)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
30th Aug 2022 16:44

Possibly the biggest shock (if only because it was one of the few 'new' items in the guidance) was in the "If you notice an error in your digital records" section:
"To update your records, you should change, delete or create a record, so the transaction is recorded correctly in the quarterly period in which it took place.
Your software will ask you to re-send the relevant quarterly update."

If proof were needed that HMRC don't understand spreadsheets, here it is:
a) there are many ways to correct an error - and they aren't simply restricted to those 3 options.
They are actually 3 out of the 4 standard data-entry 'modes' within databases - which of course don't apply to non-database apps (like spreadsheets).
I would argue that in a spreadsheet (which is lacking the audit trail you might expect to find in an advanced database system), it is better practice to enter an 'amendment' as a new record ... so that you can see what values were entered at different points in time.

b) The suggestion is that every time you enter one of these types of 'correction' the (submitting) software will prompt you to send HMRC a revised QU for the appropriate quarter.
*Every* time!
So a strong inducement to do the *opposite* of what HMRC want you to do ... i.e. sit on all the known necessary adjustments until (oh I don't know - say after year-end), and then enter them in one go (along with all the other expected year-end adjustments) ... so only 1 set of 'revised' QUs is necessary before considering the EOPs.

And that's just one of the many things that became LESS clear with this round of 'guidance' ... what do HMRC think the word 'should' means?
There are loads of things I *should* do (take more regular exercise for instance), but failing to do so doesn't result in receipt of a fine ... whereas there are things I *must* do (such as submitting a SATR if I've received a notice to do so) for which failure automatically generates penalties.
So which do they mean (the word is everywhere in the guidance)?

Thanks (14)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By NotAnAccountant2
31st Aug 2022 08:56

Hugo Fair wrote:

Possibly the biggest shock (if only because it was one of the few 'new' items in the guidance) was in the "If you notice an error in your digital records" section:
"To update your records, you should change, delete or create a record, so the transaction is recorded correctly in the quarterly period in which it took place.
Your software will ask you to re-send the relevant quarterly update."

If proof were needed that HMRC don't understand spreadsheets, here it is:

b) The suggestion is that every time you enter one of these types of 'correction' the (submitting) software will prompt you to send HMRC a revised QU for the appropriate quarter.
*Every* time!

I can't be arsed to go and find the legislation again but I'm pretty sure that says that corrections to earlier quarters must be sent no later than the time of the next update - so the next quarter update or EOPS.

But now I'm puzzled:

Quote:

The guidance page entitled “Using Making Tax Digital for income tax” says the taxpayer needs to use “compatible software” to complete these three tasks:

create and store digital records of each business transaction
send updates of the totals of the business income (sales) and expenses every quarter
confirm the end of period statements (EOPS).

This is incomplete. Here's how to save oodles of tax for your (richer) clients AND convince them that MTD is the greatest thing that HMRC has ever come up with (if that advice is correct - which it obviously isn't...)

1. Move almost all of their income into partnerships or companies, so outside of MTD.

2. Ensure they have a qualifying amount of MTD income (including a trivial self employed business with exactly one transaction of 100 a year) so that they ARE caught by MTD.

3. Follow those instructions for year 1, you keep the records for their MTD business, you do the quarterly updates, you do the EOPS for the MTD business, and all of that partnership and company dividends no longer need to be declared and they're saving a fortune in tax - more than enough to pay your bill for the MTD work :-)

4. After year 1 move all of the income except that trivial self employment income into companies/partnerships. Now the MTD submissions become a single quarterly update of 100, three of 0 and an EOPS of no adjustments and everybody is happy (except HMRC)

Unfortunately, I cannot see any way to reclaim employment PAYE but I reckon I could convince my employer to pay me via a company...

It's aimed at developers but the start of https://developer.service.hmrc.gov.uk/guides/income-tax-mtd-end-to-end-s... is actually a "good" resource for explaining how HMRC expect MTD to work. (Scare quotes because heaven knows what it will look like in a years time...)

In particular, this is missing from their guidance above:

Quote:

Final declaration

This is the process that allows the customer to finalise their end of year position. This includes any business and personal data they need to provide to HMRC to reach their final tax liability for a specific year.

Before starting the final declaration journey the software package will need to ensure that, for the relevant tax year the customer:

has finalised EOPS for all their businesses (self-employment, uk-property and foreign-property)
has already provided their entire income e.g. interest, dividends, other SA schedules
does not have any additional information to provide

And this is the hard bit for software to deal with - because it has to be able to support *EVERY POSSIBLE* source of taxable income and deductions outside of MTD. There's P11Ds, charitable donations, pension contributions (and all the things that I'm blissfully unaware of - perhaps even accountants do not expect to know every possible complication of every possible income source)

Unless, of course, they're abandoning the Final Declaration and retaining the tax return - which will be pre-populated with the data submitted via MTD - in which case they could abandon the EOPS too as it doesn't add anything.

I'm not sure if the EOPS will be amendable prior to the final submission. But my experience of doing my tax return is that I fill in the tax return, I see the figure for tax due that HMRC says that doesn't agree with what I calculated, I then go back over the tax return (and my spreadsheet) looking for the error(s) (which in the past has been things like gross/net pension contributions and gross/net charitable donations. inside and outside of P45 redundancy payment was another where I had to reverse engineer how to submit the data to get the correct tax deducted)

I haven't been following the API changes but I don't think there's any way to add whitespace notes either - so my redundancy payment I guess would need a separate letter to explain what I'd done. Lack of whitespace is going to lead to some interesting tribunal cases - expecially if HMRC are still way behind dealing with post - apply a contentious interpretation, submit your data, post a covering letter to HMRC to say that's what you've done and rely on HMRC not reading the letter until it's too late for them to do anything about it.

(N.B. In the case of my redundancy payment there was no contentiousness involved)

Thanks (0)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
31st Aug 2022 09:12

Hugo Fair wrote:

Possibly the biggest shock (if only because it was one of the few 'new' items in the guidance) was in the "If you notice an error in your digital records" section:
"To update your records, you should change, delete or create a record, so the transaction is recorded correctly in the quarterly period in which it took place.

This I cannot understand.

A vat registered trader is going to keep one set of accounting records which are used for his MTD Vat obligation as well as his MTD IT obligation.

He enters everything and does his vat return. He also does his IT return for the same quarter. He later finds an error (purchase invoice entered as £1,200 with no vat claimed rather than £1,000 plus £200 vat) He goes back to quarter and corrects in same, his IT then for quarter gets resubmitted. But now his books for the quarter do not match his vat return for quarter, what does he do to correct same?

Logic says correction for IT should be the same process as correction for VAT, in the later quarter when the error is detected.

Glad I will have virtually none of these to do in the first wave (one partner has personal rental over £10,000 pa but that is it, rest are partnerships and limited).

Thanks (4)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By Open all hours
30th Aug 2022 20:43

Completely agree. As I’ve said before, Jim Harra must step up or step down. This MTD programme/fiasco/circus must not be allowed to drive itself any further in to the mire.

Thanks (2)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
30th Aug 2022 12:08

"MTD ITSA it will have to evolve or die"

I think its already dead, but it just doesn't realise it yet.

Making up rules which no-one can reasonable follow, and HMRC cannot reasonable enforce is rather pointless.

HMRC may as well decree what colour socks the tax payer should wear whilst doing their tax return, and if its the wrong colour instruct them to walk backwards 3 times round the desk whilst flagellating themselves for failure to pray to the exacting requirements of the MTD gods.

Thanks (13)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
ghm
By TaxTeddy
30th Aug 2022 12:34

I agree that we shouldn't lose sight of the inability of HMRC to enforce any of this. We suffer as accountants by getting hung up too much on the fine detail - the month-end issue is a case in point.

I'm sure that some time ago the HMRC publicity team made an admission that they aren't actually going to do anything with this data and it's worth keeping that in mind.

By all means file something quarterly, anything really. But only take the time to get it right at the year end when the tax return needs to be completed. That's the important part.

Thanks (8)
Replying to TaxTeddy:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
30th Aug 2022 13:36

@TT, I quite agree.

HMRC should remember their job is to collect taxes, not promote software or police bookkeeping.

I think in part these rules are the response to the obvious response to the initial guidance which was "file total junk, and a proper one at the year end" which made the whole project even more pointless than it was to start with.

Of course all the impact assessments are done based on light touch junk data. The impact of having to refiling every single correction "in year" would be phenomenal, not to mention keeping dual VAT and income tax books. And it would raise how much extra tax again............?

Thanks (7)
Replying to TaxTeddy:
avatar
By deanshepherd
31st Aug 2022 09:48

TaxTeddy wrote:

...the HMRC publicity team made an admission that they aren't actually going to do anything with this data...

No doubt the same HMRC publicity team that told us we would be able to correct errors or omissions on the next submissable quarterly update or EOPS, rather than re-file which now appears to be the case.

Having spoken to the data scientists at HMRC, who are salivating at the prospect of analysing all that 'great data', they are absolutely going to be doing 'something' with it. My guess will be raising a whole raft of unsubstantiated aspect enquiries that amount to little, if any, additional tax revenues.

Thanks (0)
Replying to deanshepherd:
Tornado
By Tornado
31st Aug 2022 10:21

"My guess will be raising a whole raft of unsubstantiated aspect enquiries that amount to little, if any, additional tax revenues."

I think this is highly unlikely. HMRC do not have the resources to deal with its current workload let alone deal with great swathes of additional enquiry work, especially when any aspect enquiries will probably be due to an inability to use Accounting software rather than tax evasion.

Can you image the amount of time HMRC would have to spend trawling through Amateur Spreadsheets trying to find where someone has made a mistake. Also remember that Excel is not the only spreadsheet program available, we extensively use a program that is not Excel and probably one the HMRC have ever heard of.

It is all a huge mess which is entirely the fault of HMRC as they seem to have spent more time (and OUR money) on group hugs and making wishes than on proper planning for this project. Our local Village Fete Committee could have done better.

Thanks (9)
Replying to Tornado:
Tornado
By Tornado
31st Aug 2022 10:55

"we extensively use a program that is not Excel and probably one that HMRC have never heard of."

Typing error!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tornado:
ghm
By TaxTeddy
31st Aug 2022 10:59

OpenOffice? Me too.

Funny thing is - for MTDVAT the OpenOffice (.ods) file has to be converted to an Excel (.xls) file to be uploaded successfully by TaxFiler. Translation errors? No idea and frankly, I don't care..

Thanks (0)
Replying to TaxTeddy:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
31st Aug 2022 11:12

Strange - given that use of Open Office is mandated throughout most (all?) govt departments ... indeed any downloadable spreadsheets on GOV.UK are in .ods format ... so they can hardly claim ignorance of its existence.

On t'other hand, TaxFiler is a commercial product that took a (bad) decision for what it presumably considered commercial reasons.

Thanks (2)
Replying to TaxTeddy:
Tornado
By Tornado
31st Aug 2022 11:35

So it seems that due to muddled thinking, HMRC staff will have to learn how to use dozens of different Spreadsheet programs, hundreds of different Accounting Software programs and hundreds of different bridging software programs in order to be sure that they can interrogate any submissions under MTD for ITSA.

It is just not going to happen!

There have been a large number of obvious blunders with this project, (I am thinking of starting a thread where AWEB members can tell us about their favourites such as the expected 400,000 people in the MTD Pilot that ended up with just 9 people), but the biggest blunder now is not accepting that this is a dead project that needs to be scrapped or at least postponed until HMRC have a fully working, thoroughly tested and highly relevant system that has been created in consultation with people who know what they are doing.

At the start of a period that will be worse than the pandemic for many people and is likely to see many businesses fail due to rising costs, the effects of war, climate change and countless other problems, it seems more than CRASS that HMRC still doggedly push ahead with this pointless project that will just add to the misery of many people in business, those that rent out property and many others.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By NotAnAccountant2
31st Aug 2022 11:51

Tornado wrote:

So it seems that due to muddled thinking, HMRC staff will have to learn how to use dozens of different Spreadsheet programs, hundreds of different Accounting Software programs and hundreds of different bridging software programs in order to be sure that they can interrogate any submissions under MTD for ITSA.

You send them a screenshot - or post them a printout.

If they want to see the "digital links" then you send them the screenshot of the tab with the "SUBMIT" button on it.

For people trying to do accounts on a mobile phone, you send them a picture of the mobile phone - which depends on having two mobile phones I guess - that top of the range iPhone is now going to be a fully tax-deductible expense - clearly the only reason you have it is to do MTDITSA, the rest of the time you use the cheap android mobile and just switch the sim to do the submissions :-)

Thanks (0)
Replying to NotAnAccountant2:
Tornado
By Tornado
31st Aug 2022 12:16

"You send them a screenshot - or post them a printout."

That is not really providing information in a digital format which is what MTD is all about. Extracting information from a screenshot would require HMRC staff to interpret the information and then type it into their own systems which is just not going to happen for a number of reasons.

Digital is Digital and means the processing of electronic data only.

In order to interrogate full digital accounting records for any period would require software that can read the original information in the same format that it was created. Note that it is permissible to create digital information in any number of formats that you like as long as information is transferred between them in Digital format. A tad difficult to follow an audit trail but perfectly acceptable.

Curiously, Copy and Paste of information is not accepted as a digital transfer despite the fact that it clearly cannot be anything but a digital transfer of information.

This is such a mad project.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tornado:
Morph
By kevinringer
31st Aug 2022 13:22

Tornado wrote:

So it seems that due to muddled thinking, HMRC staff will have to learn how to use dozens of different Spreadsheet programs, hundreds of different Accounting Software programs and hundreds of different bridging software programs in order to be sure that they can interrogate any submissions under MTD for ITSA.

I know from discussions with agents that have had MTDVAT inspections, HMRC won't accept data in a format native to the program eg a Sage backup. HMRC will only accept a limited range of format of which paper seems to be their preferred. So much for digitisation.

Thanks (1)
Replying to kevinringer:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
31st Aug 2022 15:16

"HMRC won't accept data in a format native to the program" ... 'twas always thus.

However in the past HMRC used to specify the format/contents of a file that could be sent to them as the first step (for them to consider at their leisure before deciding if a physical inspection was required). There were different versions of this file for different taxes - e.g. PAYE, VAT, etc - although the acronyms now escape me.

Of course that massively reduced the number of site visits they made (as presumably intended), so they've wound down those resources.
After all they won't need to check your records if (their version of) maintaining digital records & links is what you've been doing ... hollow laughter!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By adjadj
31st Aug 2022 20:55

The format of the data and the mechanism for sending it is defined in the APIs, the Application Program Interface. There is no other method of submitting the data, indeed that is the purpose of bridging software. The APIs are about the only things that are well defined!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By adjadj
31st Aug 2022 20:55

The format of the data and the mechanism for sending it is defined in the APIs, the Application Program Interface. There is no other method of submitting the data, indeed that is the purpose of bridging software. The APIs are about the only things that are well defined!

Thanks (0)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By bluebaron
30th Aug 2022 12:52

They won't be able to enforce it if millions of taxpayers fail / refuse to comply with this nonsense.

Thanks (4)
Replying to bluebaron:
By Nebs
31st Aug 2022 10:34

bluebaron wrote:

They won't be able to enforce it if millions of taxpayers fail / refuse to comply with this nonsense.

Fail? Refuse? Millions of unrepresented taxpayers aren't even aware that it is happening.

Thanks (6)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
Tornado
By Tornado
30th Aug 2022 15:18

My socks are blue and white striped, which I hope is within the regulations, but if this is not correct then I don't mind too much as the penance looks quite interesting.

Thanks (2)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
Tornado
By Tornado
30th Aug 2022 15:22

"I think its already dead, but it just doesn't realise it yet"

A bit like the Norwegian Blue ...... nailed to the perch to make it look as though it is still alive.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By Geoff56
31st Aug 2022 09:20

I once used that sketch to explain a point to a client, about his end-of-life company. He knew very little about company law but he loved his Monty Python and understood what I was trying to convey.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bluebaron
30th Aug 2022 12:45

End this vanity project now!

Thanks (5)
avatar
By Jo Nokes
30th Aug 2022 13:52

I’m puzzled. If I didn’t read articles on this website, how would I know about this guidance? When are the millions of unrepresented small traders and landlords get to hear about MTD

Thanks (12)
Replying to Jo Nokes:
avatar
By bendybod
31st Aug 2022 09:46

Hopefully not until HMRC have got their communication sorted. We know it is rubbish. Taxpayers tend to assume (or some of them still do) that what comes from HMRC is to be followed.
Or the next incumbent of number 10 will scrap it anyway and we'll all be back to square one. I keep thinking I am going to communicate with my clients about it but how many times have we communicated with our clients about something that has either been ditched, changed or delayed at the last minute?

Thanks (1)
Replying to bendybod:
Tornado
By Tornado
31st Aug 2022 17:09

I think the Personal Tax Account and Business Tax Account are planned to be the main method of communication with HMRC Customers and it will be through those Accounts that they will receive details of what they should be doing.

I will leave the punchline of this one for you to work out!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
31st Aug 2022 17:18

PITA .. putting the I in PTA?

Thanks (3)
ghm
By TaxTeddy
30th Aug 2022 14:03

And the loglal end game for all this data collection is predicted by the current / latest Amazon outrage. I see now that they are creating a TV programme for Amazon Prime TV based on the hilarious camera footage captured from your private Ring doorbell systems.

It's one thing to have 'private' video footage of your dog biting the postman stolen from you and re-packaged for profit by Amazon. But it's only a very short step to having your confidential financial data sold by the UK government or your bookkeeping software provider. Let's face it, most likely both of those organisations have their data hosted on an Amazon server somewhere.

It would be naive in the extreme to think this could never happen, either deliberately or accidentally.

Thanks (6)
Replying to TaxTeddy:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
31st Aug 2022 10:13

The government will not sell your data, just lose it, they are not competent enough to make a profit.

Thanks (6)
Replying to DJKL:
ghm
By TaxTeddy
31st Aug 2022 11:08

Government no. A minister who has 'interests' with Big Tech? Maybe. Suddenly there is a 'national interest' to have the data handled by a third party so a policy ensues.

Thanks (0)
Replying to TaxTeddy:
avatar
By Pat Tyson
31st Aug 2022 10:34

Remember they sold all the data on us held by the NHS to Amazon!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By steve 12321
30th Aug 2022 16:03

This all makes my head spin. Spins so much it may well fall of and I will die as it says. I can't see me evolving to deal with this. Not without it costing much more for clients who will not be happy. Of course with the additional costs to taxpayers I hope all the extra income over and above the usual tax return submissions it produces will offset the tax loss to the extra fees (£7 (isn't it per year tax the tax rate))? something silly anyway they quoted. Can we put these people put to do something useful like gardening for old people? Tax should be as easy as possible. there is no need for this and apart from the obvious, no one wants it!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By nickycruze2
30th Aug 2022 19:33

Making up rules which no-one can reasonable follow, and HMRC cannot reasonable enforce is rather pointless.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By GHarr497688
30th Aug 2022 23:08

I will be annoyed if HMRC scrap MTD ITSA - they have to go ahead with it at this late stage and charge people for non-compliance .

Thanks (1)
Replying to GHarr497688:
avatar
By johnjenkins
31st Aug 2022 09:26

and so say all of us
and so say all of us
for Harr's a jolly good fellow etc.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Mr J Andrews
31st Aug 2022 09:36

Exactly where is this ''latest'' [ and previous ] guidance being released to HMRC's ''customers'' ??.
Ask Tom the plumber, Dick the pensioner landlord or Harriet the childminder if they've heard anything about MTD ITSA guidelines and they'll think you are talking about some new dance routine.
For that matter ask any HMRC frontline official and be met with some under the breath profanity about Jim Harra.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Mr J Andrews:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
31st Aug 2022 10:15

MTD ITSA sounds more like a drug taken at a rave. (Not that I would know anything about raves)

Thanks (4)
avatar
By Apache999
31st Aug 2022 10:30

Rebecca,

You do a great job.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Homeworker
31st Aug 2022 10:34

"The MTD ITSA guidance says the taxpayer must use compatible software to keep digital records of all business income and expenses"
So the agent who blithely said in a recent webinar that she would prefer to collect all of the data from the client and start from scratch will NOT be complying with the regulations, as I have thought from the start.
When trying to claim exemption from MTD for VAT for an elderly commercial landlord I argued that he was incapable of keeping digital records but exemption was initially refused as I could keep the records for him (despite being 100 miles away - he sends a hand-written analysis ledger by post once a quarter). They only relented when the client wrote to them himself. I have argued all along that there will be large numbers of taxpayers (I refuse to call them customers!) who will be unable to keep digital records. Claiming exemption for so many will likely be difficult and time consuming and if the window is not opened early enough I anticipate thousands of penalty notices when this is introduced.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Homeworker:
ghm
By TaxTeddy
31st Aug 2022 12:13

I think in the case you describe that it would be the tax agent who is creating the digital records. At least I hope so because that's my intention for most of my MTDIT clients.

The way I see it, everyone has to go through this process more or less. So someone who is running Xero bookkeeping will at some point have a paper receipt and they will then enter the details into their software. So I don't see this as being any different from the client giving me a bag of paper receipts and I enter them into a spreadsheet. Although I could be wrong.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By tedbuck
31st Aug 2022 10:39

It all returns to the basic fact that HMRC as an organisation is totally incompetent. They are trying to get everything computerised because they don't have the trained staff to actually deal with questions raised or queries on returns.
I have received two letters from high up in HMRC which display a level of incomprehension of the tax system which is hard to believe. I have pointed out both errors to the relevant people and have heard no more. Both items were errors generated within HMRC and each resulted in a £5,000 loss to HMRC - in neither case have I had a response despite several weeks having passed.
Statistically that is terrifying - if my tiddly little practice has £10,000 underpayments being ignored by HMRC the "Tax gap" in general caused by such errors must be absolutely huge. I assume no-one in HMRC wishes to admit that they are wrong as to do so might get a slap on the wrist.
Can you imagine this sort of error level applied to MTD f ITSA? Bet it would end up somehow as an excuse for more fines.
I think we ought to be able to fine HMRC for not replying to letters timeously - say within a month - it would cost them an absolute fortune and we could all retire.
Jim Harra must be replaced as he isn't fit for purpose and nor is HMRC. HMRC desperately needs someone with accounting experience who understands taxation as well. They should then ensure that all their systems are trialled by the ground floor staff to make sure that they work and are intelligbile to the simple minded. Having tried a few things on HMRC's website recently I think I qualify as simple minded as I had to get help to do what should have been simple so there is a big gap between what HMRC expect and what they are likely to get.
I still believe the whole thing is designed to raise money by levying fines on people who a) cannot afford it, b) won't be able to understand what they have to do and c) who won't have the technology available to them so more accountants' fees.
I do not wish to be HMRC's lackey, paid or not, so as far as I am concerned they can go away and play with themselves and I am retiring.
What a contemptible end for what used to be a good organisation run with some success from local premises with real people who understood what they were doing. Fat chance of that now. Just look at some of the stupid cases brought before the tribunals by HMRC.
Ugghhh!

Thanks (5)
Replying to tedbuck:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
31st Aug 2022 11:17

Yes; just look at this latest stupid case, with justified criticism of HMRC by the judge.
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2022/289

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
31st Aug 2022 11:57

Thanks ... another addition to my list of ways in which to make clear that someone was lying without using the word:

"Furthermore, HMRC’s clear assertion that the appeal does not relate to a s. 29 assessment appears to be out of step with the facts."

Thanks (1)
avatar
By bluebaron
31st Aug 2022 10:54

MTD IT'S Awful!

Thanks (1)
Replying to bluebaron:
ghm
By TaxTeddy
31st Aug 2022 12:15

Back when all this started we joked that "MTD" was an acronym for "making tax difficult".

If only we had known how prophetic that would be.

Thanks (1)
Replying to TaxTeddy:
Tornado
By Tornado
31st Aug 2022 13:17

TaxTeddy wrote:

Back when all this started we joked that "MTD" was an acronym for "making tax difficult".

If only we had known how prophetic that would be.

With so many opportunities arising for the figures to be wrong, perhaps Making Tax Dubious would also be apt.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By bluebaron
31st Aug 2022 13:45

Certainly Making Tax Dangerous.

Thanks (0)

Pages