Editor in Chief (interim) AccountingWEB
Columnist
Share this content
AIA

Penalties delayed after hundreds get RTI non-filing notices

by
11th Feb 2014
Editor in Chief (interim) AccountingWEB
Columnist
Share this content

STOP PRESS (12 Feb): HMRC has announced that it will delay the introduction of automatic penalities for late filing and late payment following a series of teething troubles with the online filing system. More details are available here.

Today's breaking news will be a relief to accountants who have received a rash of incorrect PAYE “no-filing” notices and follows a call from the ICAEW and other professional bodies and software developers for a delay to the imposition of automatic penalties under the real time information (RTI) regime.

On Friday morning (7 February), AccountingWEB member 0098087 reported getting a load of RTI non-filing notices for the period ending 5 Feburary, even though their payment run was on the 7th and their RTI returns were submitted on the same day.

 A quick survey of the 49 comments that followed established that around 80 similar notices have been incorrectly issued to these AccountingWEB members.

They are not alone.

In recent weeks, AccountingWEB’s Any Answers page has seen RTI-related queries, complaints and rants about:

The confusion and difficulties pacifying clients who expect their accountants to get their payroll right is bad enough. Comment after comment in the AccountingWEB thread highlighted the time taken to resolve the non-filing notice problems with HMRC - partly due to the “barrage” of phone calls it has received about the issue, according to Kazmc.

But the situation will get even worse if the RTI system continues to send out inaccurate non-filing notices after April, when they will be accompanied by automatic penalties. “We could be looking at appealing £2,000 worth of penalties from notices received just today,” Kazmc commented.

The ICAEW Tax Faculty, too, has been fielding similar complaints from its members. In its response to the government’s consultation on secondary legislation, it called for a delay in the 6 April start date for RTI automatic penalties.

“A year after go live, PAYE real time information (RTI) still has too many teething troubles,” noted the faculty. Its submission also called for adequate funding to made available to “sort out RTI as soon as possible”.

The ICAEW’s call was echoed by AccountingWEB members. “A system that sends out erroneous reports is clearly not fit for the purpose of raising penalties,” commented stepurhan. “There is no way HMRC should be able to levy penalties until this is sorted.”

Moneysoft’s help desk has been busy this week. Richard Carey came on to AccountingWEB to inform members of correspondence the payroll developer received from HMRC that stated, “For those who have filed their ‘no payment EPS’ they can be assured that the notification can be ignored...” He added that he was hoping for further clarification shortly on HMRC’s  website.

The growing volume of inaccurate messages bears uncomfortable parallels to the 2008-10 NPS implementation disaster in the way HMRC’s system is continuing to create a new employment on the employer’s record every time it encounters a discrepancy. For employers, this has meant duplicated PAYE charges in recent months, but the worry is that thousands and even millions of duff employment records could be stacking up behind the scenes at HMRC.

Turning his attention to the systems issues behind the inaccurate tax dashboard figures, AccountingWEB member DMGbus noted that HMRC’s Employer’s Office often has correct data from FPS reports , but the Collector of Taxes does not.

“A plausible explanation is that there is a design flaw at HMRC end with the suspected (but HMRC would never admit this) whereby one department (Employers Office) receives the data and has to by manual intervention ‘map’ or copy and paste the data to another department (Collector of Taxes).   One would have thought that this would have been an automated process, but the existence of differing data in two departments suggest that some scope for human error exists in transferring data, or alternatively HMRC's IT partners have not fulfilled their contractual obligation to provide a system that works.”

Weecalum added: “HMRC need to admit that they have made an error and not try to say we (employers) have submitted incorrect details. The refusal to admit that there are problems with RTI is doing nothing to help taxpayers’ trust and confidence in HMRC.” 

Replies (74)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By jam2
13th Feb 2014 10:01

Non filing notices

When I received non filing notices for RTI that had been filed on time, infact early, the response I got when calling HMRC was " its a customer services email". I thought the idea of customer services was to help not hinder.

Thanks (0)
By 0098087
13th Feb 2014 13:45

And there we have it..centralised deductions.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By lrthinkmap
13th Feb 2014 14:08

RTI LATE FILING NOTICES

 

I have become so despondent with HMRC; what a waste of tax payers money.

 

If HMRC get it wrong; they state they are only human (their words by one of their operators); we get it wrong it's a threat or penalty notice.

 

All agents should maintain a file on incorrect notices received  from HMRC; get together and lobby for compensation.I sat through a 20 minute seminar last week where an HMRC representative stated how HMRC are going to improve their IT; it was laughable.It then transpired  the improvements would be available for clients to look online; but the agent facility is still not available. When does HMRC get the message; clients use agents because they either cannot do something themselves or wish to choose an agent because they are busy running their own business.

 

Soon there won't be any agents left; the ones I speak to are fed up having to pick up on HMRC and their incompetence.

I would just love to spend some time with the policy makers and sort the lot out once and for all.They obviously do  not work in the real world; we work in real time, they work in any time they wish and sort out when they wish or simply just leave a trail of mess for agents to clear up.

I challenge HMRC policy makers to start to listen to Agents and the professionals and employ individuals who can make decisions which are common sense focused.

 

 

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Oppco
13th Feb 2014 14:46

You can't always run the payroll prior to paying

Is Joyce Annand referring to 'net to gross' payroll calculations? If so, then her comments make sense to me.

Our pub client pays his barmaids net on Sunday night. How much will depend on how long they are there and this is sometimes unknown until the shift finishes (a busy evening for example) We then run the payroll on Monday morning, grossing up the net pay and submitting to HMRC.

I'm sure this is a common issue in several sectors

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By TC2
13th Feb 2014 17:53

RTI: Reply to stepurhan Thu 13/02/2014 - 09:21

Before preaching at Joyce Annand and others, wouldn't it be wise to check definitions and actual practices?

If by "payment to be made on the 31st" Joyce actually means "Payroll date is 31st", then she isn't doing anything wrong at all.  And I think she might mean that because, if they haven't processed the wages until after 31st, then they can't be paying them until after 31st.

Scenario: Payroll date is 31st, i.e. employees will be paid for all work done up to that date. 31st is therefore the date you must put in your payroll software so that deductions etc. are properly calculated. Payment date is 2nd (perfectly legal if that's what your employment contracts say). Wages processing and FPS are done on 1st, i.e. before payments are made.

Can anyone see anything penalisable about that?

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ruddles:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
14th Feb 2014 11:30

Did you check?

TC2 wrote:
Before preaching at Joyce Annand and others, wouldn't it be wise to check definitions and actual practices?
This accusation keeps on coming up, no matter how many times misapprehensions about it are covered. Let's try this again.

The payroll date should always be the date that the payment is made. This has always been the case. RTI has not changed this. Using a payroll date of, for example, 31st March when you are not actually paying until the 2nd April is now, and always has been, wrong. There are not two separate dates, a payroll date and a paydate. There is one date only.

Think about this logically for a moment. A report is required to be submitted on or before the paydate. The only date you are telling HMRC is the "payroll date". If the payroll date and the paydate were allowed to be two separate dates, how would HMRC know whether a report was late or not? Employ psychics?

The fact that doing this wrong has been actual practice in many small businesses for years does not make it right. Many people exceed the speed limit, but that does not mean speed limits have gone away. Only if actual practices have been accepted by concession do they become legitimate.. Similarly, things do not become legal simply by being written into employment contracts. An employment contract that shows an hourly rate below minimum wage does not eliminate minimum wage requirements, even if an employee signs it.

If you have a link to the legislation that shows you can have separate payroll and paydates, then by all means provide it. If you have called me wrong simply because you "know" things work differently, then may I suggest you are the one that needs to check their facts before posting.

Thanks (2)
Chris M
By mr. mischief
13th Feb 2014 19:52

Crystal ball-gazer from July 2013!

http://ukcampaign4change.com/2013/07/10/is-hmrcs-rti-project-really-a-su...

I hope the site mods are OK with this link to an excellent article highlighting the many failings of RTI before it became apparent just how big a disaster it was going to be.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Catherine Milnes
14th Feb 2014 10:10

Accountants acting as agents in this payroll business

We received a  letter stating that a client had overpaid their PAYE as employer.  Despite a 64-8 being in place I was not able to find any information online about due and paid amounts.  After a phone call to the Employer's Helpline - where a breakdown of the payments was read out - I was told that agents could not access this information; it as only available to the 'client' employer via the Business Dashboard.  Which exactly defeats the object of our client outsourcing his payroll matters because he is busy running his business!  Bonkers, surely if HMRC is trying to operate with fewer staff.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By DMGbus
14th Feb 2014 13:35

Separate dates

An employment contract will specify a salary payment entitlement date.

In practice an employer will usually adhere to that date - the contractual obligation - the entitlement date.

Sometimes one of two things will happen, either paid a few days early or in very rare cases paid late.   Paying early can happen with the way bank holidays and weekends fall - non banking dates.  Late payment can happen with employer error or unforeseen cashflow issues.

Some sources say the "entitlement date" is the date for RTI reporting (even though not paid on that date).  

Others will say that, as PAYE is a remitance based (not accrual based) tax, then the payment date is the correct RTI reporting date.

In most cases the payment date being a few days adrift of the entitlement date will have no bearing on PAYE/NIC liability, but could upset compliance with HMRC's RTI filing obligations.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Old Greying Accountant
15th Feb 2014 14:00

All well and good ...

... but as a bureau I have no control over pay date.

If client says he will pay on 28th, I send payroll details to him 25th and he pays 26th, how am I to tell?

It is an insufferable burden that small businesses should have to suffer such levels of pedantry on something that in 90% of cases doesn't matter a jot.

My payrolls are all dated the last day of the month, when the client pays is their business.

I have some complex ones that I cannot send FPS immediately as there are always amendments, plus, not everyone is paid the same day, I am not going to run a payroll for 20 people 3 times because some get paid 25th, some last Friday of the month and some on the last day etc.

In the unlikely event HMRC match bank statement to payslip dates I will contest any penalty to extremis!

On the speeding metaphor, a police car is unlikely to stop you driving at 75mph on a motorway on a clear day with no other traffic around, but may stop you at 60mph if driving 3 foot from the car in front in pouring rain or thick fog - they use what is called discretion, even speed camera's have a built in margin - that is all I ask - if penalties did not apply until after the end of the tax month, regardless of pay date, that would be fine with me - even better if an e-mail reminder was sent out on the last day of the calendar month as it is really easy to forget to file the FPS when juggling running payrolls, handling telephone calls and clients popping in unexpectedly.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By TC2
14th Feb 2014 16:15

Payment Date: Did you check?

To stepurhan:

No, you are right, I didn't check, but having always read everything available, I thought I had.

I have now phoned the Employer's Helpline.  The following are comments on my new understanding, not a justification for what I thought previously.

- I was told that "thousands of employers have misunderstood Payment Date". SO THESE COMMENTS MIGHT BE USEFUL TO QUITE A LOT OF PEOPLE".

- HMRC guidance uses the phrase Payment Date but doesn't define it.

- Sage (HMRC-approved) software uses the phrase Process Date but doesn't define it.

- The Payment Date, I was told verbally, is "the date when the money is actually received by the employee".  If you've been incorrectly dating your payroll earlier than this, and doing your FPS on that date, then you're legal for RTI submission rules; but you're illegal with regard to .... what RTI rule? I don't know.

- If you pay people for the same work period but by different methods which result in different Payment Dates, then you should be doing separate payroll runs with different dates (!!).

- So if you pay people by cash or cheque, and they don't happen to be there to collect it on the usual day, then I suppose you need to re-run your payroll in several separate batches (!!).

- And if you pay directors by a credit to their loan accounts, then they haven't actually received the money, so that isn't the Payment Date. The Payment Date is the date they actually take the money. (Yes, stepurhan, that's what the Helpline said). (After all, what's the difference between a credit to a director's loan account and a credit to a wages liability account? If an employee came to me and said 'I want it today because that's what my payslip says', then I'd give it to them).

- If you've been running your weekly payroll incorrectly because of this, and want to correct it, don't just date your next week 3 days later ... if you miss out an HMRC week no. then tax calculations might go wrong. I don't know how you'd sort it out.

RTI is all about informing HMRC at any time before employees are paid i.e. isn't "Real Time" at all.  Once a liability has been created, the actual payment date doesn't affect anyone except the employer and the employee, so why should HMRC care?

P.S. to Old Greying Accountant: Just read your Post after posting mine - we are violently agreeing!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Manchester_man:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
15th Feb 2014 09:49

Is that an apology?

TC2 wrote:
I have now phoned the Employer's Helpline.  The following are comments on my new understanding, not a justification for what I thought previously.
The following comments show that I was correct in the first place. I agree that this information should be more widely disseminated, and that is exactly what I did with my original comment, though in a somewhat terse manner given I've had to do it so many times before in other threads. Does this mean you now wish to apologise for the rude manner in which you said I was flat out wrong?

Old Greying Accountant wrote:
On the speeding metaphor, a police car is unlikely to stop you driving at 75mph on a motorway on a clear day with now other traffic around, but may stop you at 60mph if driving 3 foot from the car in front in pouring rain or thick fog - they use what is called discretion, even speed camera's have a built in margin - that is all I ask - if penalties did not apply until after the end of the tax month, regardless of pay date, that would be fine with me - even better if an e-mail reminder was sent out on the last day of the calendar month as it is really easy to forget to file the FPS when juggling running payrolls, handling telephone calls and clients poopping in unexpectedly.
I quite agree. The penalty regime as it stands is too draconian and use of discretion coupled with polite reminders, would be a great move. Any penalty regime should only punish those who deliberately ignore the rules, and the current (now postponed) setup is way over the top for that. Given the delay in implementing it at all, do you think we have time to lobby for these changes?

Marlowe52 wrote:
Thanks for the lecture on how we should be handling our payroll.  Unlike civil servants and some corporate employees, small business owners do not live in a world of certainty regarding their income.  If I don't have enough cash to pay the Directors salaries, I would have thought it would have been fairly obvious that I don't have the money to pay the tax on those salaries I haven't yet paid either.  I'm not entirely sure your assertion is correct that, if I make a note in the accounts (deferred payroll account) that salaries are owed but have not yet been paid, then that means "it HAS been legally paid".  In many cases, the Directors might simply later forego their salary if the business did not pick up, or more cash was required to invest in expanding the business. I'm certain others far better qualified than I will have a more accurate view on this.
In my original post I suggested you speak to an accountant. Clearly you have not done that, as you are labouring under many of the same misapprehensions you had before.

Credits to the directors' current accounts are accepted as legally paid. Note, the directors' current accounts, not this "deferred payroll account" you keep referring to. The same goes for dividends. This is not only widely used by accountants across the country, it is accepted by HMRC. This method of paying salary is used all the time. Yes, ideally you should pay the cash out, but you don't have to. I am entirely certain that my assertion on this is correct. Even just judging by my profile here, I have been in accountancy for nearly 7 and a half years. It has actually been a lot longer than that. May I ask how much professional accountancy experience you have in asserting I am wrong on this point? I suspect you will find that I actually am one of the "others far better qualified" than you to provide an accurate view on this.

Given the above (and if you still don't believe it you are the one losing out) the rest of your objections just evaporate. The irregularity of your turnover does not affect the salary being recorded. The requirement to invest cash in the business does not mean you have to forego salary, as no cash has left the business. Even if it did, there would be nothing to stop you taking the cash salary out of the business (so it had been actually paid rather than just deemed paid) and put it straight back into the business bank account. Salary actually paid and yet the company still has the cash, not exactly high finance is it?

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Marlowe52
16th Feb 2014 18:39

I bow to your experience and knowledge

Stepurhan

I don't think I was rude to you, I certainly hope not!  I simply said I wasn't as sure as you are on the legal payment date for RTI purposes. This was mainly because, like TC2, I also checked with the HMRC Employer Helpline but, in my case just before RTI was introduced, and I got exactly the same advice as TC2. I was told that the 'payment date' for RTI was the date you actually paid the employees i.e. the date you handed the cash over.

But please be clear, I am under no misapprehensions as you suggest in your posts.  I have been running my own businesses for nearly 20 years and worked variously as an IT Director and even a Finance Manger in audit for major international corporates before that. So I was not in the least happy with the advice from HMRC because I don't think they are clear when the legal 'payment date' is either.  As you correctly point out, paying Directors' salaries into the Directors Loan Account - even if the money is not there to draw down is the same as paying the salary.  And thanks, but I am fully familiar with how most small businesses use the Directors Loan Account.  We use it ourselves for injecting cash into the business (when required) and a subaccount for paying Dividends to shareholder Directors (naturally, on the date the dividend is formally approved by the Board).

But your suggestion that we should pay the salary monthly - pay the tax on it - and then give the money straight back to the company as a loan didn't really strike me as the most tax efficient way to manage things. Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to paying tax on my earnings - nor to paying my fair share of NIC. One of the differences I had with our accountant when I did employ one was that he wanted to pay lower salaries to Directors to avoid NIC .  We now have policies in place that keep Directors' remuneration and shareholders dividends in balance - a lesson that maybe some of our banks should consider?

You keep picking out the bits of my posts that are saying what we don't do, rather than what we do. So let me tell you exactly what we do and then you can tell me - and I would be interested to hear from others as well - whether we are 'legal'...

When RTI came in, we changed the Directors' contracts.  We now pay a small annual 'salary' payable once a year - but the bulk of the remuneration is now based on performance-related bonuses (now let me see - who did we learn that from? Oh yes I remember!).  The bonuses are paid through the payroll, monthly, hence we pay tax and NIC as we go. But, if the company doesn't hit its cash targets, there is no cash, no bonus and hence no pay.  So we declared Directors as employees who are paid irregularly - both in our payroll system and when using the HMRC On-Line RTI tool.  When we make a bonus payment we run the payroll at the end of that month - which is when we pay the bonus.  We pay our PAYE and NIC and report to HMRC using the basic on-line tool.

Trouble is, the HMRC calculations don't match the payroll software calculations.  Now with over 40 years in the IT industry, here I do have some expertise and experience.  And, after much careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion there's a bug in the system which needs fixing!! 

Thanks (1)
Replying to TomMcClelland:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
16th Feb 2014 19:07

Tax-efficient salary

Marlowe52 wrote:
I don't think I was rude to you, I certainly hope not! 
The rudeness comment was really directed at TC2.

Quote:
But your suggestion that we should pay the salary monthly - pay the tax on it - and then give the money straight back to the company as a loan didn't really strike me as the most tax efficient way to manage things.
This is where personal advice would come in. If you are paying salaries that would generate a tax bill then I agree that would me most tax-inefficient. (probably) But from this

Quote:
When RTI came in, we changed the Directors' contracts.  We now pay a small annual 'salary' payable once a year - but the bulk of the remuneration is now based on performance-related bonuses (now let me see - who did we learn that from? Oh yes I remember!).  The bonuses are paid through the payroll, monthly, hence we pay tax and NIC as we go. But, if the company doesn't hit its cash targets, there is no cash, no bonus and hence no pay.  So we declared Directors as employees who are paid irregularly - both in our payroll system and when using the HMRC On-Line RTI tool.  When we make a bonus payment we run the payroll at the end of that month - which is when we pay the bonus.  We pay our PAYE and NIC and report to HMRC using the basic on-line tool.
it sounds like you may have an unusual setup. If you are not a company where the directors are also all shareholders, there is wide-spread tax planning you can't undertake. If all your directors are shareholders, then you may be being poorly advised to go down this bonus route.

Quote:
Trouble is, the HMRC calculations don't match the payroll software calculations.  Now with over 40 years in the IT industry, here I do have some expertise and experience.  And, after much careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion there's a bug in the system which needs fixing!!
Could be a GIGO issue (I'm sure you're well aware of that problem with your IT experience). There are special rules for NIC applied to directors. If you aren't flagging that up correctly on one of the two systems (most likely the HMRC one) you will end up with different calculations for the same figures. Again, this is an area where an experienced adviser can help you. You may think the lack of cash means you cannot afford one, but the costs of doing things wrong is usually much greater in the long run.
Thanks (2)
avatar
By peterdell
16th Feb 2014 19:06

Marlowe52

Don't apologise, I am not sure whether he is a stooge by Aweb to generate interest but he speaks for no one but himself.

He doesn't understand payroll and we need a clear and consistent message that RTI does not work as it stands, doesn't consider the impracticalities for small accountants and needs to change to either a month end (either 5 or 19) reporting procedure before penalties can be levied. There are so many decent practitioners highlighting the problems and doing good work to get this changed many I could name on this site.

You are completely right.

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to AnnAccountant:
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
17th Feb 2014 10:40

You are wrong

peterdell wrote:

Don't apologise, I am not sure whether he is a stooge by Aweb to generate interest but he speaks for no one but himself.

He doesn't understand payroll and we need a clear and consistent message that RTI does not work as it stands, doesn't consider the impracticalities for small accountants and needs to change to either a month end (either 5 or 19) reporting procedure before penalties can be levied. There are so many decent practitioners highlighting the problems and doing good work to get this changed many I could name on this site.

You are completely right.

Stepurhan is not a stooge for AWeb (or for HMRC which was your previous accusation) and he does indeed speak for me and many others who understand payroll and the requirements of RTI.  No-one, not even HMRC, thinks that the HMRC processing of RTI reports and the issue of penalty warnings is working properly - that is why they have postponed the introduction of penalties - but for most small accountants, filing RTI reports when they run the payroll before the (contractual) date of payment is the obvious thing to do and is far from being impractical.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By peterdell
17th Feb 2014 18:38

Euan

I should firstly point out you are the one with penalty notices! and no I am not wrong or there wouldn't be campaigns to get the whole system changed. I should remind you in November you and Stephen ( the aweb stooge or whatever his name is) quite categorically stated it was my fault that I had these penalty notices. You have backtracked once and you will backtrack again and the reason. Many people run payrolls in many different ways and you cant make them fit into a single model. You still haven't clearly answered examples where payments are based on weekly timesheets, the payment is calculated by an accountant and a third party makes the payment. Do we have to guess when the payment is made?. Why because in the same way you probably wouldn't have the first clue on how to build a house, most builders couldn't give two figs about the minutia of the payroll system. And thus you need a deadline ie 5 or 19 rather than a date which is a moving deadline and in some very carefully constructed cases would be impossible to meet. When you have a suitable answer to my payroll conundrum then you and whatever his name is will get my attention until then I think its quite insulting that you and whatever his name goes round Aweb pontificating about something which you don't grasp.

And to have AWEB hold him up as some kind of expert...............Is just an insult.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to kevinringer:
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
19th Feb 2014 10:37

@PeterDell

peterdell wrote:

I should firstly point out you are the one with penalty notices! and no I am not wrong or there wouldn't be campaigns to get the whole system changed.

That there may be campaigns to get the whole system changed does not mean that you are right about Stepurhan being a stooge for Aweb, that he speaks for no-one but himself and that he does not understand payroll.  You seem incapable of reading reasoned comments before jumping onto your hobbyhorse and firing off false accusations.

peterdell wrote:

I should remind you in November you and Stephen ( the aweb stooge or whatever his name is) quite categorically stated it was my fault that I had these penalty notices. You have backtracked once and you will backtrack again and the reason.

I do not recall stating "categorically" in November that you were at fault.  Please provide links to the relevant comments by Stepurhan and me so that we can all see the basis of your assertion.  And there is no justification for you to refer to Stepurhan derogatively as "Stephen ( the aweb stooge or whatever his name is)".

peterdell wrote:

Many people run payrolls in many different ways and you cant make them fit into a single model. You still haven't clearly answered examples where payments are based on weekly timesheets, the payment is calculated by an accountant and a third party makes the payment. Do we have to guess when the payment is made?. Why because in the same way you probably wouldn't have the first clue on how to build a house, most builders couldn't give two figs about the minutia of the payroll system. ... When you have a suitable answer to my payroll conundrum then you and whatever his name is will get my attention

What makes you think that I or any other member owes you an answer to any question you may post on Aweb? 

peterdell wrote:

... until then I think its quite insulting that you and whatever his name goes round Aweb pontificating about something which you don't grasp.
And to have AWEB hold him up as some kind of expert...............Is just an insult

I think you should look in a mirror.  It is you who is handing out the insults.  I am sure that Stepurhan (not "whatever his name") and I both grasp the operation of payrolls, PAYE and RTI.  If we seem to be pontificating, it is only setting the record straight in response to strident and unreasoned assertions from you and others.  Please explain in what way AWeb hold up Stepurhan as an expert.

peterdell wrote:

And thus you need a deadline ie 5 or 19 rather than a date which is a moving deadline and in some very carefully constructed cases would be impossible to meet..

I don't disagree that it might be easier to have just one RTI filing a month by the 5th or even the 19th, although I am not sure how the payroll software people would program that.  Nor do I understand your comment about "some very carefully constructed cases" - it sounds as if you are talking about very unusual and rare special circumstances.  All I (and Stepurhan) keep saying is that in the vast majority of payrolls, the payroll is run before the date of payment - in order to work out the net pay from the gross pay - so the present RTI requirement to submit a FPS on or before the date of payment is not an onerous additional obligation when running the payroll.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By simonwwhitt
18th Feb 2014 10:48

Clarity and Common Sense

What is obvious from the fact that so many apparently reasonably intelligent people have differing opinions about some very basic issues regarding the operation of RTI is that the system has not been properly set up and communicated to users.  I now know that if I am to run RTI strictly in compliance with the law as I now understand it to be I will have to run two separate payrolls with all of the extra aggravation that this entails.  There are clearly many others for whom strict compliance with RTI is going to create significant problems/burdens.  And all because some bureaucratic idiot in HMRC insists that I MUST submit data on a particular date rather than three days later.  Nobody has suggested any excuse for HMRC demanding this information on this date - and it is not as if HMRC will actually use it on that date.  It is just another excuse for levying penalties - and it would be good if some of the apologists for HMRC could acknowledge this fact rather than implying that if you break the law you should expect to be penalised.

Thanks (1)
By 0098087
18th Feb 2014 10:55

The reason they want the information on this date is due to the idiotic members of the government and their disastrous universal credit idea. Make no mistake about it. This was all the brainchild of Osborne, IDS and their advisors, who know nothing about the way business runs.

Thanks (1)
By Dan Izzard
18th Feb 2014 17:32

Comments

Thanks for your comments, please remember that while heated debate is an acceptable part of being within the community, anything further will cause us to have to consider un-publishing the thread for review which is not something we want to do. Please keep this in mind when formulating your contributions. Thanks.

Thanks (0)
Chris M
By mr. mischief
19th Feb 2014 07:48

Complaint case number 1 update

The first Complaint Case has now become clear at last.  The PAYE and NI payment which my client made in October 2012 with one Accounts Office digit wrong was moved to suspense.  We tracked this down in October 2013 and HMRC then moved it out of suspense.

However, it was moved to the client's corporation tax account - you can't make this stuff up!  Meanwhile a shed load of specified charges had hit my client's PAYE account so the balance Debt Management were chasing bore no relation to anything myself or my client could possibly recognise on 2 fronts:

1.  The suspense item we'd assumed had been put to PAYE and NI - given that it was a payment of PAYE and NI - had gone to corporation tax.

2.  HMRC had hit the PAYE account with a load of made up numbers.

In my view, if this case represents even as much as 3% of the country's PAYE and NI balances then HMRC are immersed in a great big pile of do-do and will be for some time.  Given that I only run 34 payrolls and have one other similar case on the go at the moment, plus one case where HMRC have completely messed up the NI holiday, it's not looking promising for this wonderful new system.

 

Thanks (0)
By cathyne
22nd Feb 2014 13:45

not all bad

Apart from a couple of early teething problems, I am growing to 'like' RTI. I use both  Moneysoft, and 'Payroo' for different clients and I have not yet experienced any of the horrors described by other posters. Just need to be extra careful to meet the filing dates. Maybe I'm lucky? Famous last words......

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Old Greying Accountant
04th Mar 2014 11:40

..

oo :o)

Thanks (0)

Pages