Tax Writer Taxwriter Ltd
Columnist
Share this content
To let signs
istock_to-let-signs_newsfocus1

MTD ITSA: Your questions answered – landlords

by

Rebecca Cave has received some answers from HMRC to questions about when and how landlords will have to comply with MTD ITSA, and how jointly held property is treated.

3rd Sep 2021
Tax Writer Taxwriter Ltd
Columnist
Share this content

These questions have been raised by AccountingWEB members in the MTD Bootcamp webinars and in Any Answers. There are still some unanswered questions concerning non-resident landlords and partnerships, which HMRC said there will be further announcements about in the future.

Jointly held property is also a bit of a puzzle, but I hope the examples help in this area.

When must landlords register for with MTD ITSA?

Taxpayers are mandated into MTD ITSA from the beginning of the tax year after they submit an income tax return that shows they have qualifying income from property and/ or self-employment of £10,000 or more. This turnover threshold is calculated per taxpayer not per property, but partnerships are different.

Example 1

Theresa and Bob are married and jointly own a property which is let for £18,000 (gross) per year. The income is deemed to be allocated to them on a 50/50 basis because they are married, and they have not submitted an alternative declaration to HMRC on form 17.

Theresa and Bob are each treated as receiving £9,000 per year from this property. As this is less than the turnover threshold of £10,000 and they have no other self-employed income, they do not need to register for MTD ITSA. 

Bob dies on 1 July 2023, so Theresa receives the entire rental income from that date onwards. She reports gross property income of £13,500 on her 2023/24 tax return which she submits in January 2025.

Theresa will have to comply with MTD ITSA from 6 April 2025, her first MTD ITSA filing date will be 5 August 2025.

How do non-married landlords decide when to comply with MTD?

Where a property is jointly owned by individuals who are not married or in a civil partnership, those owners are free to allocate the property income between them as they see fit, and this allocation can vary year to year (see property income manual PIM 1030). This rule applies even where the jointly owned property is not treated as a partnership.

Example 2

Anthony, Brian and Charles are brothers who jointly own a property that is let for £18,000 per year. If the brothers share the property income equally, they each receive gross rents of £6,000 per year, which is under the £10,000 turnover threshold, so they are not required to comply with MTD ITSA.

In 2023/24 the brothers decide that Brian should take £12,000 of the rental income and Antony and Charles should take £3,000 each. Brian will report gross property income of £12,000 on his 2023/24 tax return which he submits in September 2024.

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 (45)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Paul Crowley
03rd Sep 2021 12:49

Thanks again
It is a jigsaw puzzle
How are the unrepresented taxpayers expected to follow any of this nonsense

HMRC saying "we will tell you later" demonstrates that questions are coming to them that they never thought of. No surprise there
How long have HMRC had to consider all the various options?
Have HMRC considered asking real users about the difficulties?

The partnership one is a new one on me
IT is separate to its members in counting up and adding things together to check the £10K limits

Still I am sure HMRC will figure out its rules by July 2023 provided they get a constant stream of questions from those who actually do all the real tax work

Thanks (16)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
03rd Sep 2021 13:45

A jigsaw puzzle with a picture, but where the pieces are still being made whilst we try to work out how to proceed.

HMRC (at the behest of the Treasury) were quick to announce the overarching concepts, but seem happy only to consider any definitions of 'rules' on the basis of when the problems are brought to them - witness all the "tell you later" type of responses.
It's the first tenet in any other organisation considering major changes to play out all the possible scenarios & potential problems BEFORE making any public pronouncements.
If there is insufficient experience or competence within HMRC then they should have sought insights from a proper cross-section of their 'clients' in advance as they did, belatedly, with RTI.
Note: a proper cross-section would include not just the big accounting firms and institutes, but groups like LITRG and small practices of book-keepers and of accountants, and so on.

Thanks (11)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
03rd Sep 2021 15:43

I quite agree Hugo. Sounds fine in practice but this is completely killed by the detailed implications of this madness.

Accountants in practice realised this from the off, hopefully it is slowly dawning on HMRC how messy this will be and how impossible it will be for them to actually enforce any of this.

Thanks (8)
Caroline
By accountantccole
03rd Sep 2021 12:59

Noooooooooooooooo

Was hoping our non residents and overseas properties wouldn't be included

Thanks (1)
Replying to accountantccole:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
03rd Sep 2021 13:03

There goes the UK reputation for being sympathetic to the non English speaking
FOREIGNERS
LEARN ENGLISH

(Capitals because HMRC is shouting)

Thanks (2)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
Caroline
By accountantccole
03rd Sep 2021 13:11

To be honest - non residents I expected to be in there. Foreign rentals is more of a pain as we need to mess about with currency and seasonality for a lot of clients.

Thanks (1)
Replying to accountantccole:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
03rd Sep 2021 15:40

It will be very interesting trying to register a non-resident landlord without UK passport for a digital tax account in order to give the "digital handshake" required to file.

I wonder if HMRC have thought about that.......

Thanks (10)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
By Michael Beaver
06th Sep 2021 09:30

Non-resident landlords selling UK property can sign up to the new CGT for Property account without going through the ID check rubbish. I imagine it will be the same here?

Why they can't just link it to the UTR and be done with it only God knows.

Thanks (7)
avatar
By GHarr497688
03rd Sep 2021 13:10

My blood boils reading this rubbish . Bring it on now . If Hmrc want to see the power of Accountants they are about to find out .

Thanks (9)
My photo
By Matrix
03rd Sep 2021 14:58

How does Brian report his £12,000 property income and associated expenses digitally though? I though this article would assist on how to report on a transactional basis.

I can’t contact my landlord clients until I know this. And don’t say anything about bank feeds.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Matrix:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
05th Sep 2021 13:38

I did advise a family group of three that have varying proportions on quite a few properties that MTD was going to be a challenge.
They told me that I would have software that they would make entries on and that MTD was going to be easy

Long story short, they are the only clients I know that have complained to their MP.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By SXGuy
03rd Sep 2021 15:07

Hang on a mo. So say for example a person's year end is April 24. They pass the work over to their accountant in (best case scenario) July 24, to which the SA gets filed on Jan 25. But hold up a minute, accountant now sees in July client should have registered for Mtd from April 24??

How in all that's holy will this work in real life?

What I mean by that is. Someone under 10k isn't worrying about registering takes a few months to hand work over. Accountant sees they have gone over 10k and should have registered a few months prior.

Thanks (1)
Replying to SXGuy:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
03rd Sep 2021 15:39

no filing penalties for the first FOUR filings missed, ie first year. So to be fair to HMRC you will have time to find out you should have been banging in made up numbers for several months into the void of pointlessness.

Thanks (4)
Replying to SXGuy:
ALISK
By atleastisoundknowledgable...
03rd Sep 2021 19:24

SXGuy wrote:

Hang on a mo. So say for example a person's year end is April 24. They pass the work over to their accountant in (best case scenario) July 24, to which the SA gets filed on Jan 25. But hold up a minute, accountant now sees in July client should have registered for Mtd from April 24??

No, they register for 25/26, being the tax year after they submitted their return (in Jan 25).

ie 2 years after you breach the £10k.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By CJaneH
03rd Sep 2021 15:10

Hi Rebecca

You you used to write articles that suggested that the rules would work. Almost like you were supporting the changes. I get the impression from the last two articles that you do not think that MTD can work, which is what a lot of us thought several years ago.

Thanks (14)
avatar
By AdamMurphy
03rd Sep 2021 18:15

I’m going to use the equivalent of the countdown number generator to bang in quarterly figures

Thanks (4)
Replying to AdamMurphy:
avatar
By SXGuy
04th Sep 2021 13:01

I think we should do a monthly tombola on aweb and whatever number comes up we all use as turnover for that month.

Not only will it show our point but hmrc will think their system has gone into meltdown.

Thanks (14)
Replying to SXGuy:
ALISK
By atleastisoundknowledgable...
04th Sep 2021 13:03

SXGuy wrote:

I think we should do a monthly tombola on aweb and whatever number comes up we all use as turnover for that month.

Not only will it show our point but hmrc will think their system has gone into meltdown.

I like this. Can we all have the same profit figures as well? Obviously a low one, don’t want the little ol’ dears paying tax unnecessarily

Thanks (2)
Replying to AdamMurphy:
ALISK
By atleastisoundknowledgable...
04th Sep 2021 13:02

I’ll probably just go 1/4 of the prior years’.

Thanks (0)
Replying to atleastisoundknowledgable...:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
05th Sep 2021 13:42

My current view is £1 income with no expenses
Per quarter of course, not per annum. Per annum would look silly.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Latinaid
22nd Sep 2021 15:13

Paul Crowley wrote:

My current view is £1 income with no expenses
Per quarter of course, not per annum. Per annum would look silly.


£1 per quarter not being silly at all, of course.

I love these ideas, and since HMRC have already said that the numbers can be estimates, they can hardly complain.

Thanks (0)
Replying to AdamMurphy:
avatar
By imran
07th Sep 2021 09:19

the best reply to this post so far, id love to do this :D

Thanks (1)
avatar
By NotAnAccountant2
04th Sep 2021 21:37

I (think I) get the quarterly reporting bit, and the EOPS.

But I'm still stuck on the digital record keeping part.

Lets say, in example 2, that Anthony keeps all of the records. Lets further more assume that he's happy to do whatever is required to ensure that Brian meets his MTD obligations. What, exactly, does Anthony have to do to achieve that? Currently Anthony emails Brian and Charles the totals and their shares which they then type into their tax return. Does he now have to email a spreadsheet attachment every quarter that Brian can upload somehow (bridging software perhaps)?

Or does he have to send every transaction, pro-rata, to Brian for Brian to enter into his MTD software?

Thanks (5)
Replying to NotAnAccountant2:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
05th Sep 2021 00:25

Exactly.
There seems to be a presumption by HMRC/govt that all base records are already (somehow) 'digital' ... so all their emphasis is on ensuring a seamless transfer of these digital records (without human intervention) as they progress down various paths that culminate in a submitted return.
But without re-heating all the angst expressed on this site about managing that digital 'path', there is indeed the more fundamental question about how (and where) the initial creation of an item of digital data takes place!

Thanks (4)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By NotAnAccountant2
05th Sep 2021 09:57

Hugo Fair wrote:

But without re-heating all the angst expressed on this site about managing that digital 'path', there is indeed the more fundamental question about how (and where) the initial creation of an item of digital data takes place!

One of the things I'm finding particularly frustrating is that there are already people using MTDfITSA. I know its a restricted pilot, but is jointly owned property another reason for exclusion? Surely these questions have been 'solved'. Even if it's a 'were doing it this way and HMRC have confirmed it's acceptable'

Not necessarily here, but the sort of questions I'm asking on how to do this as a software developer I'd half expect to get a snarky comment and a lmgtfy link in response.

I think there are basically three solutions:

1. Each taxpayer keeps their own pro-rata 'transactions'. I'm not 100% sure that works where accrual basis is used and proportions change mid year. I hope nobody is claiming this won't add work for taxpayers.

2. One person keeps the 'golden source' digital records and the software can upload proportions for multiple taxpayers. This works but there are privacy issues where the record keeper might keep records for 5 properties but B is only part owner of one of them. It also fails where A,B and C own three properties jointly in every pair of owners. There is no one person entitled to see all the MTD records in one place. One piece of software could handle this but A, B and C would all have to use the same software.

3. Much as now, one person keeps the records and supplies the other taxpayers with the relevant figures for the MTD uploads for each property. I think this 'just works' but clearly shows that the act of 'digital record keeping' and the act of 'uploading to MTD' are completely separate operations and no comprehensive software solution that forces you to combine them can work in all cases. Effectively, there has to be a 'bridging' solution. (The digital links part to avoid cut and paste or retyping numbers is trivially solved by the record keeper exporting the numbers in some standard format, csv, xml, json etc and the taxpayer importing it to consolidate with other properties before uploading to MTD.

If I'd been designing the MTD API, I'd have made the quarterly submissions be by property (or where multiple properties are held in identical beneficial ownership, 'property group') and disconnected it from the SA submission which is by taxpayer. Each property group would have a list of taxpayers, and each taxpayer would have a list of property groups.

(of course, even this genius idea has some issues, how do you handle the case where a property group has to be split mid year? Perhaps you cannot have property groups...)

Thanks (2)
Replying to NotAnAccountant2:
Paul Beck
By paulbeck
08th Sep 2021 21:39

@NotAnAcccountant2 - For the digital linking, if Anthony sends a spreadsheet with columns for date, category and amount, this is a valid form of digital linking. The spreadsheet, at a minimum, should have daily transaction totals. So for a UK rental property business for a quarter with monthly rental payments on a single property, three rows in the spreadsheet are acceptable.

Separately, Brian can do the transactions in Excel for his client Anthony (bookkeeping service). Then use this as the digital source/recording software. "Digital linking", needs to allow for tracing from the recording software (Excel in this case) and the quarterly MTDfITSA submission software.

Neither Brain nor Anthony can enter the values into a quarterly return software solution for the quarter (now he is breaking digital linking). The digital linking is not explicitly clear, and HMRC providing examples of valid and invalid scenarios would help immensely.

Thanks (0)
Replying to paulbeck:
avatar
By NotAnAccountant2
09th Sep 2021 09:16

paulbeck wrote:

@NotAnAcccountant2 - For the digital linking, if Anthony sends a spreadsheet with columns for date, category and amount, this is a valid form of digital linking. The spreadsheet, at a minimum, should have daily transaction totals. So for a UK rental property business for a quarter with monthly rental payments on a single property, three rows in the spreadsheet are acceptable.

Separately, Brian can do the transactions in Excel for his client Anthony (bookkeeping service). Then use this as the digital source/recording software. "Digital linking", needs to allow for tracing from the recording software (Excel in this case) and the quarterly MTDfITSA submission software.

Neither Brain nor Anthony can enter the values into a quarterly return software solution for the quarter (now he is breaking digital linking). The digital linking is not explicitly clear, and HMRC providing examples of valid and invalid scenarios would help immensely.

I'm not completely clear what you're saying but I think you're saying Anthony and Brian have to independently keep a complete set of transactions for their MTD obligations, which works until Anthony realizes he's made a mistake and wants to change something at which point Brian needs to reimport the new spreadsheet without duplicating but with correcting.

(I don't believe this is what HMRC intend. The response to the consultation states that you don't need to keep digital copies of receipts and invoices. Therefore if Anthony keeps all of the receipts and invoices on paper then it isn't physically possible to give that to Brian and also keep it. I believe there should be one person keeping the records and supplying summary data to the other owners for MTD but that should be in a digital format that doesn't require retyping)

My 3) wasn't suggesting that Brian typed the numbers in, It was proposing that Anthony exported his MTD quarterly figures in some (common) format that Brian could then import into his MTD software for uploading. If Anthony corrects a mistake then he sends Brian a new quarterly report which Brian imports and it replaces the previously imported data for that quarter.

This "common interchange format" ought to have already been defined by HMRC. It's going to be an obvious need between people who jointly let property, especially if they have very different MTD needs outside of the property. If Anthony only has property income and nothing else (which he needs to report via MTD) while Brian has complex affairs that require an all singing, all dancing MTD solution that is only available for $$$ then should Anthony really be being forced to buy the software that Brian needs.

I think joinly owned property is the only MTD case (so far) where there's this conflict between taxpayers. Partnership MTD uploads are disconnected from the taxpayer MTD uploads.

Of course, in the future, joint ownership will also become a problem for things like CGT which I'm assuming will soon have to also be reported after each share sale. When a business is sold and one owner literally has one transaction to report and the other owner has 10M under active management with a complex and expensive MTD solution then there's going to be this same conflict.

Thanks (0)
Replying to NotAnAccountant2:
Paul Beck
By paulbeck
10th Sep 2021 09:44

Hi NotAnAccountant2 - your reply
"I'm not completely clear what you're saying but I think you're saying Anthony and Brian have to independently keep a complete set of transactions for their MTD obligation". No, the digital source only needs to be kept once. If it changes after the quarterly submissions, it doesn't really matter as you amend the amounts when you get to the EOPS.

Thanks (0)
Replying to paulbeck:
avatar
By NotAnAccountant2
10th Sep 2021 17:12

Thanks for the clarification. So when you said this:
"For the digital linking, if Anthony sends a spreadsheet with columns for date, category and amount, this is a valid form of digital linking. The spreadsheet, at a minimum, should have daily transaction totals. So for a UK rental property business for a quarter with monthly rental payments on a single property, three rows in the spreadsheet are acceptable."

Your three rows were three line accounts, not three quarterly payments? But I don't know what "daily transactions totals means then".

The actual MTD submission is rather more than three values although most will be probably usually be zero, 9 values per quarter if I'm counting correctly for consolidated non FHL and 16 for full expenses.

"If it changes after the quarterly submissions, it doesn't really matter as you amend the amounts when you get to the EOPS."

In the 31 January 2017 Summary of responses to the consultation "Bringing business tax into the digital age" it says:

Question 26: Do you wish to make any comments about the operation of ‘in-
year’ amendments to updates for the purposes of profits taxes or VAT?
52. The government agrees with the view that amendments need to be as simple and straightforward as possible. On identifying transaction recording errors or omissions, business will enter them in their record-keeping software.
53. When the business submits its next update, the software will automatically recognise any changes to previous updates. It will allocate the amendments to the correct update periods and seamlessly submit the revised information to HMRC alongside the current update.

For most people I think this is the only way that can work. One of my concerns has been the "audit trail" back to the quarterly submissions. I think there's going to be a very small group of unrepresented taxpayers who will be able to maintain the original data in the value it was originally submitted and then only correct it via journal.

While this might work if they have an accountant who tells them "whatever you do, don't change anything after you've entered it, I'll correct it at EoY" it's going to be almost impossible to get taxpayers to avoid correcting mistakes that they spot unless the software actively prevents it (which rules out spreadsheets in practice)

Thanks (0)
Replying to NotAnAccountant2:
Paul Beck
By paulbeck
13th Sep 2021 09:17

@NotAnAccountant2
Your three rows were three line accounts, not three quarterly payments? But I don't know what "daily transactions totals means then".
Daily transaction total are if you had a shop, these would be the tills totals. As we are talking about a property business with a single property, assuming the renter pays monthly. The 3 rows in the spreadsheet would be on 30 April 2023, 31 May 2023, 30 June 2023 with the single payment for the months rent in each row.

I agree on the sentiment of the remained of your comment. Basically, the source should be immutable (by this I mean it is ledger based) i.e. you make a sale for £100, the good is brought back, you put in a return of sale transaction (you don't simply delete the original sale). All booking and bank systems are good examples of immutable systems. If you source is not immutable like a spreadsheet, the submission software would need to hold the original spreadsheet otherwise you can't trace.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Moo
05th Sep 2021 09:47

I have a family of 5 as clients, parents and 3 adult children. Between them they own or part own 5 rental properties. The rent splits on those properties are all different, no 2 properties have the rents split in the same proportions between the same combination of family members. Some family members will have total rents over £10k but at least one won't. Different family members manage and keep the accounts for different properties.
I will be really interested to see the software that copes with recording the transactions, dividing the results in the correct proportions, assembling the quarterly totals for each family member and filing the quarterly returns where required, all seamlessly, digitally, without human manipulation etc.
And yes I do realise that it is all doable by building an excel workbook with a spreadsheet cashbook for each property feeding into summary schedules then exporting the right bits into bridging software but that's not really the concept that HMRC and the software houses are trying to sell us.
And what happens in this scenario when one of the group decides to use another accountant? One of them is already self employed so that adds to the complexity and increases the possibility of another accountant becoming involved.
I wonder whether in a few months time we will be told that properties in joint ownership will each be treated as a separate partnership? But then how does the end of year reporting work? Each co-owner has earnings, dividends, capital gains etc that still need to be reported on a tax return.
If you started from scratch you really could not make this up, it would be too fantastical. At the very least it should have been extensively war gamed in advance by a combination of HMRC and tax professionals.
But no, HMRC are making it up as they go along, on the hoof, in the middle of a pandemic which is causing most of their staff to work from home with obvious gaps in their training and support and many accountants ditto with the added stress of dealing with an increasing dysfunctional tax service.
What could possibly go wrong?

Thanks (16)
Replying to Moo:
avatar
By Open all hours
05th Sep 2021 17:28

This deserves, indeed demands, a full detailed reply from someone senior within HMRC.

Failing that, how about a comprehensive answer from the panel on the next relevant Aweb Live.

Yours, Moo, is the real world and I fear that those called on above will do anything to avoid encountering it.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Moo:
avatar
By GHarr497688
06th Sep 2021 08:44

Your clients would be exempt if you explained this to HMRC under exemption criteria. Overly complex , no suitable software , time and effort , data sharing issues etc. I guess if accountants all wrote in trying to claim exemption HMRC would soon become overwhelmed and drop this unworkable system.

Thanks (3)
Replying to GHarr497688:
avatar
By Moo
06th Sep 2021 09:44

I agree applying for exemption would be a sensible approach and if we all did this on a wholesale basis then maybe HMRC would think again about this stupid project.
I'm not sorry to say that I'm actually taking the coward's way out and I'm facilitating the handover of these clients to another firm.
Planning to close down my part time micro practice in order to spend more time addressing the bigger issues of food miles, soil degradation, carbon capture, climate change etc by tending my allotment.
So well done HMRC, another tax adviser (ICAEW and CIOT qualified) you have pushed into retirement.

Thanks (9)
Replying to Moo:
avatar
By alejandra
06th Sep 2021 14:19

You could be describing my own family situation, except because I am an accountant I do it all for them free of charge, on top of my own full-time job. I'm very relieved to hear this level of complexity may qualify us for an exemption, as I have been very down about the thought that the last shreds of my free time were going to be spent complying with this nonsense. Thank you!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Moo:
avatar
By Jo Nokes
06th Sep 2021 17:00

That resonated with me, becaue I have a very similar family of property owners. The rental income and expenses are run through a limited company, and pdf statements for each landlord are provided by property management software. It's fairly straight forward to construct a spreadsheet where all the numbers for each property are inserted, and the end result for each individual taxpayer falls out at the end, so to speak. I haven't yet had the heart to explain to the MD that MTD is coming, and what it will mean for his record keeping. I haven't got the faintest idea how he (or I) will cope. Still, TaxCalc reminded me today that at least HMRC has the penalty regime all lined up, for VAT and ITSA, so that is really good to know

Thanks (2)
avatar
By frankfx
06th Sep 2021 10:59

Final paragraph
" Slightly confusing answer"

Reminded me of the Golf Caddy who informed the player on the green

''Your Putt is slightly straight"

Thanks (0)
avatar
By North East Accountant
06th Sep 2021 11:35

Still need to know how MTDfIT for joint property owners will actually work in practice for the quarterly filings and EOPS.

And if it's to file each owner's share of income and expenses, how are you going to say reconcile a bank account if every owner has their own digital records showing their share only of every transaction. Bank feeds.... forget it.

Over to you HMRC....?

Thanks (0)
Replying to North East Accountant:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
06th Sep 2021 12:32

The only way is to have two diffents sets of half the original figures
Assuming the easist possible set up of joint equal
Result
Complete bunkum

HMRC version
MTD bunkam helps the taxpayer and taxpayer will be very grateful that he needs to do it and pay fees because his accurate spreadsheet and bank statements just cannot be trusted

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Rgab1947
06th Sep 2021 13:39

The more Rebecca gives answers (Or HMRC tries) the more I read a "How not to manual"

This definately has not been thought through. Must be a project they gave to a very junior civil servants to train them in how to co*ck things up.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Mr J Andrews
07th Sep 2021 17:04

More MTD crap. I can't see how the anticipated legislation will get around the abuse of Human Rights as far as our country's unrepresented OAPs are concerned, struggling on their gross £1k per month rental as their pension.
I see the tabloids are scathing Boris' 1.25 % NIC { social care } hike. I can't understand why they haven't honed in on the real nightmare to come.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By NotAnAccountant2
08th Sep 2021 08:42

A “botched” scheme to insulate England’s draughty homes collapsed after six months because officials rushed its design, had an undeliverable timetable and failed to heed industry warnings, Whitehall’s spending watchdog, the NAO, has found.

Thanks (0)
Paul Beck
By paulbeck
08th Sep 2021 21:10

@rebeccacave - great examples. I do have a query. I think you need to use your combined property income from two years previous and not the current year to work out if you are required to register for ITSA. People can elect/opt into ITSA but I believe in the example 1 (relating to when an individual must register for ITSA) you'd get another tax year before you'd be forced to register. Have I misunderstood the threshold rules?

Thanks (0)
Paul Beck
By paulbeck
23rd Sep 2021 14:30

Delayed by a year, ITSA has is now be set to start 6 April 2024.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/202...

No change to the Pilot

Thanks (0)
Replying to paulbeck:
avatar
By Latinaid
23rd Sep 2021 14:47

So, the can has been kicked down the road a bit - I wonder if we can get them to kick it into the long grass and lose it altogether?

I notice it says that penalties will be introduced from April 2024 ie. right from the start.

Also this: 'The Government has also recently consulted on a reform of the complex basis period rules that govern how self-employed profits are allocated to tax years. Many respondents said that the reform was a sensible simplification but asked for more time to implement the changes. In recognition of these concerns, these changes will not come into effect before April 2024, with a transition year not coming into effect earlier than 2023. The Government will respond to the consultation in due course providing the next steps.'

Thanks (1)