Share this content
Jim Harra and Rebecca Benneyworth

Tax admin: HMRC CEO Jim Harra explains

by

At the AccountingWEB Live Expo earlier this month, HMRC chief executive Jim Harra spoke with Rebecca Benneyworth and took questions from delegates on a range of tax administration issues, including Making Tax Digital, the basis period reform and the tax authority's relatonship with agents. 

13th Dec 2021
Share this content

Rebecca Benneyworth opened the session expressing relief on behalf of the whole accountancy profession that MTD ITSA has been delayed for one more year to April 2024. However, both Benneyworth and Harra agreed that this time needs to be used wisely; the entire tax profession (HMRC, software developers and agents) need to keep their foot on the pedal in preparing for MTD.    

Benneyworth also pointed out the delay is much less than a year for businesses who use a 31 March year end. Those businesses would have entered the MTD ITSA regime on 1 April 2024, with a 6 April 2023 MTD ITSA start date, but because of the change to the tax year basis the digital start date for all sole-trader businesses is now 6 April 2024. General partnerships (not LLPs) will have a digital start date of 6 April 2025.    

Basis period reform

Harra said the transition to the tax year basis will be difficult, but it will produce a simplification for taxpayers over time. He said the greatest difficulties will be experienced by those businesses who do not use a 31 March accounting year end.

The basis period reform consultation stated that one third of partnerships use an accounting period which is different to the tax year or 31 March.

In an earlier Live Expo panel, Paul Aplin calculated that 578,000 businesses will have to apportion amounts of income and expenses into order to report their accounts on a tax year basis. Of those businesses approximately 278,000 will have to estimate their figures every year, then correct the position on their tax return when the second period of accounts is completed.     

Overlap profits

Benneyworth made a plea for HMRC to find a way to get the overlap relief figures to agents and taxpayers easily and quickly.

A delegate asked if HMRC could lead by example and pre-populate the relevant tax returns with the taxpayer’s overlap relief, and also include all CIS income and CIS tax deducted.

Harra said HMRC does not use pre-population of tax returns as much as many other countries. However, it is unlikely that overlap relief figures will be pre-populated on to tax returns.

Harra confirmed that HMRC is working to find a way to get the overlap figures to people who need that information easily.  

New penalties

Benneyworth introduced the topic of the new penalties that will apply to submissions under MTD, for VAT from 1 April 2022, and for ITSA from 6 April 2024.

She had explored the implications of the new penalty system on a panel with Paul Aplin on the first day of the Live Expo. For quarterly submissions the first three late reports will generate a point, but on the fourth late submission a £200 penalty plus another point is awarded.

Aplin hopes that technology will be available to help people avoid clocking up penalty points. Benneyworth would like to see an interactive app on a smart phone which would warn the business owner of penalties due to accrue for late submissions, before the next submission is due.

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 (104)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By BrianL
13th Dec 2021 09:55

A politician's reply. "Harra said HMRC does not use pre-population of tax returns as much as many other countries." So what? He works for the UK not for 'other countries'.

Thanks (12)
Replying to BrianL:
avatar
By alialdabawi
14th Dec 2021 09:51

As Charlie has mentioned below, this is the first time senior(s) from HMRC have made themselves directly available to the profession. We do need to respect and appreciate that.

I will add too that comments on here both pre- and post-this event, are all valid, but we HAVE missed an opportunity to get into the same room as HMRC head and HMRC MTD head and make known our views on the project and their performance as a whole. Those present did express themselves, but numbers and intensity were way off having any meaningful impact.

At the risk of facing the forum's wrath, I would go as far as saying that I feel like the website is filled with trolls, as when the time came for putting ourselves out there in person with HMRC, there was barely any 'fire & brimstone' that we see on here.

To some extent I am disappointed, but we are where we are. Anyone who says that it is pointless speaking with them has then no right to complain about HMRC's ongoing inefficiencies or about the MTD reality. There is strength in numbers and those numbers/unity were absent in Coventry.

Thanks (3)
Replying to alialdabawi:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
14th Dec 2021 11:49

A fair point in principle, but ...
a) I don't troll anyone (my views on HMRC, corporately and individually, are well known within that organisation - having continued to express them (initially with enthusiasm and more latterly with a sense of ennui) face-to-face with middle/senior representatives over the last 20 years;
b) some of us are on what used to be called the 'shielding list (now the 'clinically extremely vulnerable list') and so aren't prepared even to take public transport (like a train) let alone attend a crowded indoor event like Expo.

Finally, for what it's worth, it was NOT "the first time senior(s) from HMRC have made themselves directly available to the profession".
They actually do so quite frequently (albeit with the same deafness when it comes to awkward questions) through countless other groups/bodies - arranged by the PBs, many SIGs (of several of which I am a member) and of course commercial organisations (like Aweb).

Indeed part of my dispiritedness is a reaction to being told (on more than one occasion) that if a particular group doesn't toe the line, then HMRC will de-recognise that group (i.e. refuse to engage further or supply speakers)!

Thanks (3)
Replying to alialdabawi:
Tornado
By Tornado
14th Dec 2021 12:20

"At the risk of facing the forum's wrath, I would go as far as saying that I feel like the website is filled with trolls, as when the time came for putting ourselves out there in person with HMRC, there was barely any 'fire & brimstone' that we see on here."

The 'fire & brimstone' on AWEB was noticed by those in high places and there was plenty enough good, valid points made about MTD and HMRC in many AWEB topics that did not require a face to face meeting to understand. So a trip to Coventry in a pandemic just to repeat what has already been said in great detail seems unnecessary.

There are unlikely to be Trolls on AWEB as the moderation would not allow this, although if you think putting forward valid points of criticism is Trolling, then that is possibly just your opinion.

I am not sure why Senior Members of HMRC should not make themselves available to the public on a regular basis. What makes them so special that we have to thank them adoringly when they do make an appearance (in a controlled environment). They should really make themselves available much more regularly and demonstrate that they are knowledgeable about the points being put to them rather than just trot out the official line.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Tornado:
Tornado
By Tornado
14th Dec 2021 12:54

EDIT to above - Fire & Brimstone = The Punishments of Hell.

A good description of what MTD will be like for many people.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By johnjenkins
14th Dec 2021 13:41

Every time anyone asks a question about MTD to anyone in HMRC, they get the same standard arrogant answer. They're not allowed to say any different. Why are Accountants planning to retire in their droves?

Thanks (1)
Replying to alialdabawi:
RLI
By lionofludesch
14th Dec 2021 12:35

alialdabawi wrote:

At the risk of facing the forum's wrath, I would go as far as saying that I feel like the website is filled with trolls, as when the time came for putting ourselves out there in person with HMRC, there was barely any 'fire & brimstone' that we see on here.

HMRC aren't listening. Why should anyone waste their fire and brimstone ?

Just let it crash and burn.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Ben Alligin
13th Dec 2021 09:52

How insightful. 'Those individuals without a 31 March year end will be most affected by the change in year basis'!!

Apart from failing to mention those with a 5 April year end (whom I don't think will be affected either), it is a good job Jim is around to advise us, that anyone else with a different year end is going to be affected by a change of year basis!!

Utter genius.

Thanks (10)
Replying to Ben Alligin:
avatar
By Winnie Wiggleroom
13th Dec 2021 18:38

When I read that I thought "is it me?"

Thanks (3)
avatar
By eppingaccountant
13th Dec 2021 09:56

"'''it can slow up the roll-out of new processes". In a similar way that I have letters and Forms that I have sent to HMRC from March - May 2021, none of which have so far been replied to? Harra should not have been let off so lightly; his answers should have been challenged. Talk is cheap.

Thanks (15)
Replying to eppingaccountant:
RLI
By lionofludesch
14th Dec 2021 12:39

eppingaccountant wrote:

"'''it can slow up the roll-out of new processes".

Good.

Maybe we can spend some time getting the old ones working.

Thanks (2)
By miketombs
13th Dec 2021 09:57

It always bugs me that they only have a direct agent support line for self-assessment. These should be available for all taxes - it's in HMRC's own interests to make it as easy as possible for us to contact them on behalf of clients.

Thanks (13)
Replying to miketombs:
avatar
By jamiea4f
13th Dec 2021 12:07

I wouldn’t put much value on it. The service is pretty dire, starting with the wait time of 30-45 minutes for a call to be answered, then answering only the most basic of questions. Anything vaguely complicated still requires an “technical expert”…

Thanks (1)
Replying to jamiea4f:
Tornado
By Tornado
13th Dec 2021 13:26

"Anything vaguely complicated still requires an “technical expert”…"

The usual 'I have sent an email to the correct technical department and they will contact you in a few days'. (If you are lucky that is, and do not have to phone back a month later to find out what is going on).

Thanks (3)
Replying to jamiea4f:
avatar
By Jimess
15th Dec 2021 11:05

I was in the queue on the agent helpline just short of an hour yesterday. It is dreadful. It is not just the phone lines though. Last week I was told by PAYE Ops that correspondence that was sent to the previously generic postcode BX9 1AS over a year ago could not now be dealt with by them, even if it is a PAYE matter. The correspondence was logged as received but had not been passed over to PAYE Ops. I find this incredible in this day and age when it is surely easy enough to ensure post is scanned and logged in the correct taxpayer file. It is extremely frustrating that one HMRC department will not co-operate with another department to help the taxpayer and their agents.

Thanks (2)
Replying to jamiea4f:
avatar
By Catherine Newman
15th Dec 2021 12:35

My call back by close of play yesterday by a technical expert did not happen (no surprise there!) and I await a call due within three working days later today. As I am a sole practitioner I am office bound in case they do call.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
13th Dec 2021 10:11

Still
FINALLY
Direct debit for PAYE
(The once a month payment. VAT is only once a quarter)

But only after the event
Jim probably did not have a clue how awful the PAYE payment allocation system was, and for the first time found out from EXPO attendees

Thanks (7)
neand
By neanderthal
13th Dec 2021 10:34

not even a word about the dystopia MTD will cause taxpayers and agents?

Thanks (6)
avatar
By tedbuck
13th Dec 2021 10:35

That's all right then - Jim says all is well - regrettably he probably actually believes it. Still ignores the major problems:-
1. HMRC aren't even up to dealing with post and telephone calls now and haven't been for ages now.
2. Mr Taxpayer at the bottom end of the pile isn't up to dealing with quarterly returns and digital submissions.
3. Elderly taxpayers will have to cope with stuff which is totally beyond their abilities and on a quarterly basis.
4. We accountants are going to be swamped because so many of our clients are not particularly computer literate and will dump the stuff on our doorsteps. So far every one I have spoken to has responded "I'll bring it in to you and you can do it" - well we might cope with the existing workload of clients but where does the staff required for 4 months a year come from to deal with the rest who will knock at the door. And for what purpose? Absolutely none because the information won't be used as it will be far too unreliable - so the only purpose can be to raise taxes by fining people which puts HMRC on the same level as the partying No 10 staff. Unfortunately my name isn't Jack and I'm not alright.

I thought the Civil Service was there to serve the public not bully them. Bad enough with the power mad NHS trying to drive us all into our homes to let them continue sitting on their duffs doing nothing very much but taking time off to vaccinate people at £15 a time whilst not doing other things they are actually paid to do but to have HMRC joining the bully boys because they cannot run their organization efficiently is really a step too far.

Thanks (19)
avatar
By DMBAcc
13th Dec 2021 10:55

Just glad I am getting out. Usual bland replies showing just how little HMRC staff are trained and still this superior attitude HMRC have. God help those businesses who cannot find (as in Cornwall) or cannot afford an accountant. As usual Mr Hara and Co don't give a monkey's for the micro businesses and nor does this government. When the proverbial hits the fan it will all be blamed on Covid and Brexit as usual. Definitely not on the disinterest and incompetence of HMRC overall. By the way a request for a Business Partnership UTR was sent 31 August and received 03 Sep 21. After a promise to process by 15 Nov 21 guess what? Yep, call us again if you hear nothing by 07 Jan 22. No penalties on HMRC though. Usual one rule for them and another for us. Whatever Hara says there is definitely a "them and us" feeling.

Thanks (11)
Replying to DMBAcc:
avatar
By RichBatoul
13th Dec 2021 12:44

I can beat that one. Request for business partnership UTR sent in on 12 March 2021 in relation to a new business that should have registered in 2019/2020. I am still waiting for the UTR despite over 4 hours of telephone calls to HMRC in the intervening months.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By johnjenkins
13th Dec 2021 11:18

"However, both Benneyworth and Harra agreed that this time needs to be used wisely and the entire tax profession (HMRC, software developers and agents) need to keep their foot on the pedal in preparing for MTD." Really??????????????
Looks to me like s... in the carburetor Jim.

Thanks (5)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
13th Dec 2021 11:34

"Looks to me like s... in the carburetor Jim."
Just cannot be
He s...s in it everyday
Definitely not a lack of s... in the carburettor.

Jim Davidson I presume?

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
13th Dec 2021 11:38

Foot on pedal for HMRC a really good idea on MTD
Pedal being brake
Fix the chassis first, then drive carefully

Thanks (8)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By johnjenkins
13th Dec 2021 11:48

You've only got to ask Lewis Hamilton what happens when you get the brake and accelerator pedals mixed up

Thanks (4)
avatar
By tedbuck
13th Dec 2021 12:04

I mean can you imagine Jim in charge of a car? Pedals, brakes carburetors all mixed up - thank goodness he isn't in charge of HMR.....................

Oh no! It can't be - but it really is.

Nightmare in BX9 street.

But good news - I'll be gone! I'm having none of it!

Thanks (2)
avatar
By anthony stevens
13th Dec 2021 12:28

Perhaps the BBC and the press should be made aware of this impending disaster instead of worrying over the PM's wallpaper!

Thanks (8)
Replying to anthony stevens:
avatar
By johnjenkins
13th Dec 2021 12:35

Don't forget the "gatherings" and "virtual quizes". That's at least 3 days worth of front page news.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By BryanS1958
13th Dec 2021 12:43

This article says nothing meaningful about MTD ITSA. I can only assume HMRC has nothing meaningful to say about it!

Did Rebecca Benneyworth overlook the many insights that practitioners have made on this platform and elsewhere? Mobile apps and basis period reforms are very low down the agenda for most in practice.

Thanks (6)
Tornado
By Tornado
13th Dec 2021 13:22

Mr Harra seemed to be alarmingly unaware of many of the problems and points being put to him, some of which have been raised many times in the past. There also seem to be 'working on' a number of procedures (some very basic) that should already have been completed and operational.

It seems to be an 'It'll be alright on the night' approach.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By adam.arca
13th Dec 2021 13:34

Quote:

...both Benneyworth and Harra agreed that this time needs to be used wisely and the entire tax profession (HMRC, software developers and agents) need to keep their foot on the pedal in preparing for MTD.

Foot on the pedal when you have only the vaguest notion of the road in front would be the height of road safety folly. Why exactly is it different with MTD?

Thanks (2)
avatar
By North East Accountant
13th Dec 2021 13:56

I hope Jim Harra has a good Dr Spock alongside him who knows what he's doing because just like Captain James T Kirk he's aiming;

"To boldly go where no man has gone before".

Thanks (0)
Replying to North East Accountant:
Tornado
By Tornado
13th Dec 2021 14:08

I was thinking more along the lines of 'Only Fools and Horses' with a growing popularity towards 'no income tax, no VAT'.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By johnjenkins
13th Dec 2021 14:39

You could probably use OFAH instead of HMRC.

Thanks (0)
Replying to North East Accountant:
By Charlie Carne
13th Dec 2021 15:23

I think you mean Mr Spock. Dr Spock was a paediatrician and psychoanalyst!

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Mr J Andrews
13th Dec 2021 14:47

Jim Harra , born July 1962 will, by my reckoning be more than entitled to draw his wonderful Civil Service pension by the time the latest MTD delay kick starts. So the difficult ''transition'' this same Harra envisages - and simpification ''over time'' will see this honcho long gone, leaving some poor incumbent sod to somehow pick up the pieces as far as staff training on Agent handling is concerned . A double whammy indeed. Another headache for the occupant of number 10 , no doubt.
Does anyone recall Harold MacMillan's lack of foresight regarding the reshaping of British Rail and in particular his famous words ... the system must be modernised to meet current needs...... For MacMillan / Beeching , read Johnson / Harra.
But what I find odd about this article is the inference - at the Expo - that MTD is a foregone conclusion. Did none of the delegates tell the Emporer that his aged nakedness was exposed.

Thanks (9)
Replying to Mr J Andrews:
avatar
By johnjenkins
13th Dec 2021 15:16

Psychological mumbo jumbo. Say it will happen enough times and people will start believing it. Unfortunately for Jim it's only HMRC and some others who are believing it. The people who MTD is targeting do not believe it.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Mr J Andrews:
avatar
By BryanS1958
20th Dec 2021 15:09

It is indeed a foregone conclusion. It is a foregone conclusion that it will be a complete disaster.

But HMRC and Gov.UK will not care because they will be collecting lots of penalties. Who needs complicated tax legislation when there are is simple penalty legislation?!

Thanks (0)
By Charlie Carne
13th Dec 2021 15:17

Direct debits for PAYE
This was the first time that I have seem Jim Harra attend an accountants' event; well, at least the first time at which he was prepared to take questions directly from us. I think that we should at least respect the fact that he was (perhaps belatedly) willing to come before us and listen to our issues, especially as we clearly had a direct effect and, when he hears the issues directly from the profession (as opposed to whatever his underlings deign to tell him), things happen. Two of us made the point (quite passionately) about enduring direct debits for PAYE and the problems that its absence causes. To announce within 10 days that this will be available from Spring 2022 suggests that they can act fast when they want to, especially when the problem is (clearly) easy to fix. The fact that this had not been fixed before suggests that no one senior at HMRC had listened to the profession about this issue, as we've been complaining about it ever since HMRC introduced enduring direct debits for VAT. I'd like to hope that AWEB can get Jim Harra to agree to come to this conference every year so as to hear directly from us what is most problematic for the profession. If he were to fix just one major problem a year, that would be a big improvement!

MTD for IT filing requirements
At the same AWEB Live Expo, I also (in separate discussions) questioned both Giles McCallum (who is the new director of MTD at HMRC) and his deputy, Richard Fowler, about exactly what HMRC need to see from the quarterly submissions under MTD for IT. They both independently acknowledged that, while its aim is to encourage businesses to maintain digital records in as near real-time as possible, the purpose of the quarterly submission is merely to prove at frequent points throughout the year that a digital accounting system is being used (and data is not just uploaded once a year by an accountant).

Therefore, if we (as accountants) take the time to set up our smaller sole trader clients (i.e. those with turnover between the minimum £10k threshold and the £85k level at which quarterly digital records need, in any event, to be maintained for VAT) with a basic MTD-compliant system (eg a business bank account with Starling or CountingUp, both of which will be able to submit MTD reports by launch), then clicking the "submit" button once per quarter will be compliant.

There is no need whatsoever to review the numbers each quarter, as we are not declaring that they are in any way accurate. The purpose is not (at least not for now) to submit accurate data. Richard Fowler specifically confirmed to me that, so long as we don't just enter a number each quarter, but that the submission is from a bookkeeping system that is attempting to record the numbers in real time (which a bank account like Countingup will do, even if the allocation of the numbers to nominal codes is totally wrong until we get to look at it after the year-end), that will be compliant on a quarterly basis.

The profession's understanding of what is is required has not been aided by HMRC's ambiguous statements that these submissions will help the taxpayer and HMRC estimate the final tax liability. Giles and Richard both separately explained that, as the purpose of MTD for IT is to encourage real-time digital record keeping, this will, in time, allow for accurate estimates as more businesses get close to real time record keeping. But the law does not yet require that the data be checked for accuracy until the final submission (as is currently the case under self-assessment).

I am, therefore, relatively relaxed about the imposition of MTD for IT. The hard part will be getting my smaller sole trader clients to stop using their personal bank accounts for business and open up a business bank account (the very small ones need only use a bank that provides MTD submissions as part of its service, such as CountingUp) so that I need not spend additional costs on a bigger accounting system like QBO or Xero. Once that is done, I can continue to do my work in one go after the year-end, knowing that my clients (or I) can click the 'MTD submission' button each quarter, whether or not the numbers have been reviewed or are even remotely accurate.

And it goes further than that. If I have a bunch of these small sole trader clients on a system that provides an accountants' portal (eg QBO or Xero), the portal could provide us with a check-box list, via which we could tick off most or all of our clients in one go and click 'submit' for multiple clients at once. If we know that their banks are connected and we know that HMRC don't require the data to be accurate (though it would obviously be more useful for our clients if, in time, the data was more accurate in-year), then one click for multiple submissions would be compliant. The time taken each quarter would be seconds. Clearly, provision needs to be made for the digitally excluded (by dint of their age or lack of broadband connectivity, etc.), but we do not need to spend hours on each client each quarter. And I have that straight from the horse's mouth!

Thanks (5)
Replying to charliecarne:
Tornado
By Tornado
13th Dec 2021 15:29

Hello Charlie

The bottom line is that Quarterly submissions are pointless and we and our clients should not have to do them.

Thanks (9)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By johnjenkins
13th Dec 2021 16:11

I'll go a bit further. If the point of QU is to make sure that the figures are digitalised. Then pray tell what is the difference between us doing them digitally or the client doing them digitally? Where oh where is the logic to do it quarterly?

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnjenkins:
By Charlie Carne
13th Dec 2021 16:48

It doesn't matter who does it during the year. The point is to do it during the year. If a submission is only made once per annum, there is no proof (or incentive) that records are maintained during the year.

Thanks (0)
Replying to charliecarne:
avatar
By tedbuck
13th Dec 2021 16:56

I think you make a good point but you have to look at the cost in terms of money, time and stress.
Many people are just not geared to deal with these matters and can get the paperwork sorted once a year but why do it more? Why do it digitally anyway?

It is utter nonsense to suggest it will be more acurate - most people using digital programs make mistakes which we correct so where is the advantage of digitalisation? It is just a fad of HMRC who themselves are not exactly good at digital stuff.

Thanks (4)
Replying to tedbuck:
By Charlie Carne
13th Dec 2021 18:05

I share your view that increasing accuracy is possibly more a hope than a reality, though there are efficiencies that might aid accuracy from using data flows that are automated rather than manually input. The key thing that HMRC seem not to realise is that (except in cases of fraud, which MTD is unlikely to reduce), many small businesses are likely to accidentally omit more costs than income and so any gains in accuracy may well lead to more legitimate costs being claimed (reducing tax take) than finding more taxable income.

I do, however, believe that there are advantages in encouraging digital uptake. It will take years but, over time, more small businesses will start to use apps on their phones to track income and costs and those apps will present the sort of reports that are of little value after the year-end but will present useful, live information in-year. Accounting for a small business then moves away from a chore required in order to fulfil one's statutory annual responsibility to file a tax return and becomes a valuable tool to aid the business owner in the running of their business (as it is for all larger businesses).

Thanks (0)
Replying to charliecarne:
Tornado
By Tornado
13th Dec 2021 18:12

I have been preparing Annual Accounts and monthly/accounts for clients on desktop computers for over 40 years and all of my clients have had the opportunity to keep their records digitally for all of that time. Those that wanted to and were competent to do so have already been doing it for a long time and for those that did not want to or were not competent to, we have found alternative ways to efficiently deal with the preparation of accurate Accounts and Tax Returns.

There were some that thought they could do it themselves, but we found that we had to charge three three time the usual fee to sort out the mess they made.

Forcing people to use digital accounting software in the name of greater accuracy is a nonsense and plain Arrogance of those that think everyone can do what they can do, or perhaps the reality is that Jim Harra would not be able to cope with digital accounting either - perhaps we should ask him if he can.

In the past HMRC have bent over backwards to help smaller businesses with special VAT schemes, short Tax Returns, etc, all of which relieved them of some of the more onerous aspects of compliance, which has helped everyone. This helpful approach seems to have been replaced with a 'Do it or will fine you heavily for your inability to deal with technology' type of approach.

There is no way that forcing untrained people to use Accounting Software and then making them submit quarterly Returns from that software, can possibly be of any use to anyone. It can be guaranteed to create massive files of useless data that HMRC will have to keep secure for years and generate millions of penalties simply for not submitting that useless data, which will be un-collectable anyway.

This arrogance of HMRC will be their downfall. A much more pragmatic approach to Digitisation with a greater emphasis on encouraging people to go digital over a period of time is going to have far better results in the long run than the gun at the head approach.

Thanks (6)
Replying to charliecarne:
Tornado
By Tornado
13th Dec 2021 17:08

Why is it necessary to have proof that records have been maintained digitally during a year when there will be proof that the final submission has been made from digital records, especially as the final submission will be the ONLY correct one.

Thanks (5)
Replying to Tornado:
By Charlie Carne
13th Dec 2021 17:49

If the submission is made annually, there is no proof that digital records were being kept throughout the year. Paper records could all have been kept in a shoebox, presented to the accountant after the year-end, when they then input the data for the whole year in one day into an MTD-compliant system. Of course, the accountant could take the paper records and digitise them quarterly (and that would also not be compliant, but be hard for HMRC to spot unless they made an on-site inspection) but, short of requiring daily submissions*, quarterly seems a reasonable compromise.

*I suspect that in 10/20 years, digital accounting systems may be used to submit transactional reports in real time to HMRC, or that HMRC will have permanent access to cloud accounting systems so that they can run algorithms to check that (for example) sales and output VAT made by company A match the cost and input VAT claim made by company B.

Thanks (0)
Replying to charliecarne:
avatar
By johnjenkins
14th Dec 2021 13:38

Wrong Charlie. It doesn't have to be digital to maintain records during the year. I'm sure many of us have clients who update their records on a monthly basis. It is the submission of QU that is utterly pointless and has no bearing on tax liabilities. So there has to be an ulterior motive. Most of us know what that is. Every reason HMRC has given to justify QU has been shot down in flames, yet they still persist.

Thanks (2)
Replying to johnjenkins:
RLI
By lionofludesch
14th Dec 2021 13:54

johnjenkins wrote:

Wrong Charlie. It doesn't have to be digital to maintain records during the year. I'm sure many of us have clients who update their records on a monthly basis. It is the submission of QU that is utterly pointless and has no bearing on tax liabilities. So there has to be an ulterior motive. Most of us know what that is. Every reason HMRC has given to justify QU has been shot down in flames, yet they still persist.

The irony is that it is likely that many taxpayers, who currently keep contemporary manual records, will reduce the frequency of their recordkeeping to quarterly.

But I agree that it's outrageous to suggest that no-one maintains their records more frequently than annually at the moment. Not to mention patently untrue.

Thanks (2)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By johnjenkins
14th Dec 2021 15:05

That is a very good point.

Thanks (0)

Pages