Jon Stow's taxing times

Hartnett, HMRC and Hutber's Law

2011-11-01T11:36:00.000-07:00

A non-resident's outlook

My sort of tax practice involves quitea lot of technical issues. It is not necessarily because I look fortrouble, but because I specialise in certain more complicated areasof tax and people come to me because they are in trouble. Thatdoesn't necessarily mean they are in trouble with HMRC (The Revenue),though they may be. It is quite often because they are having troubledealing with HMRC because they cannot find anyone in HMRC whounderstands their problem, let alone is able to help them find asolution.

Recently I had an issue with anon-resident client whose pension suddenly started to be taxedbecause HMRC did not understand it was not taxable by reason of therebeing a Double Taxation Agreement in place. Some innocent in HMRC hadissued a PAYE Code and decided that the client, who had no taxableincome in UK should fill in a tax return. Persuading HMRC to leavethe client alone took a lot of time, telephone calls and a tax returncompleted showing no taxable income. It really was the only way.

Last week, I had an issue with anotherclient whom I believed to be non-resident by both past and currentevolving standards. I wanted to telephone the HMRC Centre forNon-Residents as it is now called, which is in Liverpool. I could notfind the number on HMRC's website. I called the general agent'snumber and was told that the only way for a non-resident or his orher agent to discuss that person's affairs was to call the public'sHMRC call centre number.

Even then (this is hard to believe evenfor an old hack like me) apparently the Centre for Non-Residents doesnot take telephone calls. One has to ask to be referred to a technicalofficer who will call back and may be able to help.

Actually a technical officer did callme back, so this cost me only time (but time is money) as mytelephone calls are all inclusive in the business package. However,to get through in the first place I had to go through an automatedbutton pushing system, the first with three options and the secondwith six, so I had been on the line a while before I spoke to myfirst human. Suppose I has been a non-resident UK taxpayer by designor HMRC's default, calling from Tuvalu or Patagonia. How much wouldit have cost hanging on? Would a technical officer have phoned backanyway?

It is very difficult to pick up thetelephone and be put through to anyone at HMRC who knows about taxrules. It would be almost impossible for a lay person to get throughto the right tax official. Yet HMRC and Dave Hartnett like to calltaxpayers “customers”.

Back in the Seventies, the late PatrickHutber, City Editor of the Sunday Telegraph, stated his law“improvement means deterioration” referring to changes inservices which large corporates said streamlined their services. Oneof those was not letting bank customers have back their cancelledcheques, still a source of irritation to me. Yet HMRC won't let theirtechnical staff be contacted by the public. Indeed they now have onlytwo addresses where one might write about a new issue which hascropped up and therefore there is no way of tracking where yourletter might be until or unless you get a reply. That is no way totreat customers.

If Patrick Hutber were alive today hemight, after re-stating his law, refer to an older one in thelanguage of my aforementioned client who wrongly had tax deductedfrom her pension “Plus ça change (plus c'est la même chose)”.The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Fat cats and gutter rats

2011-10-31T02:30:00.000-07:00

The other week my wife and I were inour front garden when a man probably in his fifties came up to us. Hesaid that about three years ago he had washed and scrubbed thesoffits and fascias on our house and cleaned out the gutters. Ididn't remember him, but my wife did for it was she that hadcommissioned him to do this when he had visited previously.

This prospecting soffit cleaner (Let'scall him Stan Soffit) offered to “do” our house again for £140while pushing a business card into my hand. I pulled a face becausethat seemed an excessive hourly rate for the job. The conversationcontinued:

Stan “OK, mate, I'll do it for £90cash”

Me (pulling another face) “Actually,I am a tax adviser”

Stan “OK mate, no offence.”(Snatches business card out of my hand) “You won't be needing thatthen”

Stan the scrubber then turned andtrotted to his van, and drove to the next turning to turn round as welive in a cul-de-sac. Coming past again he slowed down and yelled “Nooffence mate, eh?” before disappearing without prospecting theother twenty odd houses in our road.

Actually I was rather offended. Peoplelike him give small businesses a bad name. They are also effectivelytaking money out of all our back pockets because if they don't paytax on their earnings, everyone else has to pay more.

Dave Hartnett, Permanent Secretary forTax (a post he invented himself really) and therefore head of HMRCbelieves that the small business population makes up a sizeableportion of the tax gap and he may well be right. He thinks thatmaybe the Chinese idea of a turnover tax would be an effective way ofcollecting revenue. Of course this would not catch characters whonever declare their income anyway. Dave must think that everyone isfiddling their expenses. I think that is a very misguided idea. Thebig problem is not with businesses submitting fraudulent expense records with their accountsand tax returns. It is with those who don't declare some or all their earnings like our friend Stan (well, no friend of mine).

HMRC keeps coming up with plans forfavourable treatment for dentists, plumbers and tutors who haveundeclared income. What they need is some joined up thinking to catchthose working in the black economy who are evading hundreds ofmillions of pounds of tax.

Of course it doesn’t make such goodheadlines as chasing billionaires and multi-millionaires with theirtax schemes and tax havens. Campaigners such as TaxResearch UK wouldn't get their media interviews out of drivetarmac cowboys or Stan Soffit. HMRC likes the fat cat headlines toobecause it makes them feel legitimate, but they are failing badly atcatching the possibly million-plus small-time tax fiddlers verylikely costing the Exchequer more in lost tax.

A turnover tax would be bonkers anyway.I guess it would just in effect be an extension of VAT for serviceproviders maybe with a flat rate, but what about retailers who havehigh turnovers but lowish margins? It would all be unworkable, often unfair, and would miss the targets.

Having been in my business a long timeI get a feeling about everyone I meet in business and indeed also ina private capacity. Darren, our window cleaner, says he will cleanour soffits, fascias and gutters for £90, a figure he quoted withoutknowing what Stan had said. I like Darren too. He is happy to take acheque; a good sign.

As part of my business I help taxdefaulters, which means those who have not made tax returns or whohave made incorrect tax returns, to come out and pay their dues. Forall those who have either been caught or, as happens quite often, geta fit of conscience, there are so many below HMRC's radar.

Never mind the fat cats. Let's round upthe rats robbing us in our gutters.

Accountants don't get it

2011-05-12T08:25:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

Well, some do, but I suspect many who are modern enough to have tried social media marketing are giving up because they haven’t seen results. Why do I think so? Well, I talk to quite a lot of people what I am out and about. I also have a Twitter list of “tax-guys-and-girls” numbering 133 currently who are all accountants or tax advisers or something pretty close. I have noticed that the stream moves more slowly than it did a year or even six months ago. There is far less tweeting going on in this list.

I have gained work through Twitter, and I have passed work on through referrals, and not only tax and accounting work. Twitter is part of the glue which makes for a community network. Twitter has put me in contact with others in my field whom I could not have heard about through any other network. Many I feel I know quite well through our online conversations. Not all these exchanges are even about business matters. The personal stuff helps give a more rounded picture of a person.

The trouble is that a lot of “professionals”, by which I mean accountants and solicitors, don't give Twitter or other online platforms long enough and they don't get it. They pound out their adverts (yawn) and they send automated tweets to technical articles and say nothing else. They don't find topical things for others to read, they don't talk to each other, and especially they don't listen.

Using Twitter is much like any other sort of networking. You get out of it what real value you put in. No one should (though some do) go to a networking meeting just to hand out their business cards and brochures. Networking is about having conversations. It is about listening more than talking.

The trouble is that some people just don’t have the patience. They don't let their personalities come through, they don't understand and they don't ask for help. It's their loss. Strange, isn’t it?

Accountants and tax advisers marketing? Call them old-fashioned!

2011-05-10T03:39:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

You could call me old-fashioned because I still wear a suit when visiting my older clients, but that is what they expect. Most of the time I live in the modern world, but strangely many accountants and those in allied trades simply do not. They are, as the saying goes “sooo last century”.

What am I talking about? Well, not accounting software, because we all have to be up to date with the requirements of the profession and those of Government. I mean marketing.

“Marketing? What's that?” I have been asked by an accountant friend.

“Don't you do any?” I said.

“No, never needed to. I just get referrals and new clients walk in off the street”

My friend is long established in business and has an office on a busy road in a commercial area. I am pleased he has a good reputation and has never had to think about promoting the business. Probably it has not expanded all that much over the past few years, but even with the inevitable churn of clients (none of us can eliminate churn altogether), he has maintained a satisfactory income and lifestyle. Good for him.

Others do think about marketing of course, but for many, if they have a website, they never do much with it. They don't think about content. The website just sits there. It probably doesn't serve as an attractor of business, and they have a website just because others do. Other than that, marketing consists of an ad in a newspaper or magazine without much thought about the target audience.

Of course some others don't even have a website. They may have reserved and still pay for a domain, and may have been doing that for years because they know they need an email address, even if only just one. They will probably get listed in the free on-line directories, but they are as much use as the paper directories for getting business – in other words no use at all with no website for anyone to click through to.

I think that unless accountants have an office in a prime location they are going to struggle if they don't market. The recession has forced many accounting staff out of permanent employment. They still have to get by and will try to set up on their own. In the future the tech- and web-savvy amongst them are going to out-market complacent old-established firms.

My friend expects to retire soon, but for everyone else, the message must be “Get out there and market”. What do you think?

Representing the sinners

2011-01-30T06:29:00.000-08:00

Image via WikipediaPart of my work as a tax practitioner is to represent those who for one reason or another have not declared their income properly. Sometimes they have not declared their capital gains either. Sooner or later they need help from someone like me.

There are all sorts of reasons why people find themselves outside the tax system. I have certainly heard some tales. I can however see certain trends in the way my new clients might have fallen outside the system.

The innocent

Some individuals do start out in innocence in that they may start a very small business for “pin money” which would be well below the level of income tax or National Insurance. Their business might then take off, they think they ought to have told HM Revenue & Customs before, and they become afraid to do so for fear of retribution. Thus they go on outside the system for several years. At some point they are either caught by HMRC or (as I much prefer) they approach me for help because they simply want to come clean and meet their obligations to the Exchequer. I love people with a real conscience!

The oblivious

Strangely there are some who really never dream that they could possible be liable to tax. These are more commonly those who receive some sort of investment income upon which they “assume”, if they had thought about it at all, that the tax is already paid. Other people in this category may include those in receipt of rents on their property. Yes, there really are some extremely naïve types who have no idea that the Government might want its share of their income.

The not so innocent

This category really knows that they should be paying tax. They just like to live on the edge and take the risk of being caught, but somehow they do not expect to be. They may have earnings or have let property.

The net tightens

It is a popular belief amongst both the public and some accountancy and tax professionals that HMRC does not have the resources to catch tax evaders, and especially small time ones. They think that HMRC prefers to concentrate on the big fish amongst the dodgers by going after the miscreants who have substantial funds in Swiss bank accounts. They believe that the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility represents the main type of evasion mainly being targeted.

HMRC have other strings to their bow. For example they have been checking the Land Registry and have been finding not only undeclared capital gains realised by property investors, but also significant undeclared rents from such properties. Judging from instructions I have received from new clients who have been found out, this is a very successful initiative.

All are welcome

Helping new clients who want to come out of the woodwork and into the system is very pleasing, and I am happy to assist those who have been nabbed by HMRC too. I don't judge people and in the end they all need help.

The variety of work is hugely satisfying, and once we have established that there is absolutely nothing else which has been forgotten in the way of income or gains, I can get a fair deal.

Of course I don't like tax evasion because dodging obligations to the Exchequer is much the same as taking the money out of our own back pockets. For the small timers, though, whether innocent, oblivious or a bit guilty, HMRC mainly wants them in the system rather than bankrupting them or hanging them at Tyburn Tree. In the end it is better to cough up some money and have someone like me represent them, because afterwards there will be no more looking over their shoulders.

You CAN talk to real people at HMRC

2011-01-23T10:19:00.000-08:00

Image via WikipediaJanuary is not my favourite month from the perspective of Self Assessment Tax Returns, though fortunately I avoid maximum stress by not taking on every last-minute prospect, giving my procrastinator clients an early “last warning” and not doing hundreds of tax returns anyway.

The biggest problem in January concerning Self Assessment is in speaking to HMRC employees in call centres who know only what is on their screens, are unable to make decisions on specific requests, don't necessarily have the information we want or are not authorised to give it.

Contrast this. I had occasion to call a Corporation Tax Office this week. The officer was helpful, we did not have a pointless barrage of security questions, she was exceedingly helpful and she changed the tax return periods while we spoke just as I asked. She was maybe a little brusque with a rougher telephone manner than one would get from the call centres, but she did the job and left me feeling happy. Above all, she did not waste my time but helped me solve a problem.

It may sound trivial but it proves to me again that organisations get better results and are more efficient if they empower their employees. I wish this ethos were prevalent throughout the leviathan that is HMRC.

What is your experience?

Tax enquiry frustration

2010-12-17T06:16:00.000-08:00

HMRC's job is to collect tax and to recover it where income has not been properly declared. These days, because of the Gordon Brown's “cuts” many HMRC staff are frankly not of the standard they used to be or are actually prevented from thinking for themselves. The current standard may be simply due to lack of training rather than ability. As a consequence they seem to be doing everything by rote.

A typical example is a discovery of some undeclared bank interest. HMRC writes to my firm and to the client. We check what has happened and there is indeed some undeclared interest but the bank actually provided incorrect information to the client and to me at the time the Tax Return was prepared. We write with the correct information and explain that it was all entirely the bank's fault.

HMRC person then writes to us and asks us to explain the omission, which we already have. It is as though no one has read our letter properly. We write back referring to the previous letter and repeating the perfectly reasonable explanation.

HMRC then writes requesting payment of a penalty for carelessness in addition to the tax which is obviously due. Now, there may be technicalities which would allow HMRC to call an innocent mistake, due to a bank's failure to deliver the correct information, careless. However, in any reasonable sense no one has been careless except the bank, which gave its customer the wrong information and HMRC the correct figures.

Once upon a time a Revenue Inspector could apply his or her judgment to any issue and act with a little discretion based on common sense. Now it is a question of sending letters one, two and three quite literally by the book and no matter the circumstances.

I hope letter four will not be in the book because we have written a strong response to HMRC's last effort. Of course they have on their side that it is not always cost effective for the client to resist too much, but then again I may just be in a pro bono mood.

Price of HMRC's delays in dealing with post

2010-12-10T02:22:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

As we know, our friends at HM Revenue and Customs don't look at their post for months after it is received. This has many detrimental effects on the relationships with taxpayers, and also those who have decided to come in from the cold and pay the tax they should have been paying for several years.

If I have a new client who wishes to own up to income received which should have been declared, he or she probably doesn't have a Universal Taxpayer Reference (UTR) and the only way of applying for one is by post. At the same time one wants to send a “marker” letter to HMRC to start the process of getting the individual into the system and establish it is at their own volition in case (a long shot) HMRC get their oar in first. That would theoretically increase the penalty potential which one wants to keep to a minimum.

The trouble is that the first response from HMRC will be considerably delayed. It takes months to get a UTR. It takes an age for HMRC to respond to a marker letter after they eventually read it and then allocate it to a case officer. You might say that offenders deserve what comes to them but once someone has decided to make a clean breast of things, I think it is only fair that they can get matters settled and get their tax (and interest and penalties) paid.

Of course HMRC also wait longer for their money because of their tardiness in dealing with these matters even after we get as far as being supplied with HMRC red spot stickers to mark our correspondence as more urgent than that from the hoi polloi. It just doesn't seem right, but HMRC apparently have 15 million open cases which means issues of any sort including over- and under-payment matters that haven't been resolved. They also have more unresolved than they know about with all those confessions sitting in their pile of post.

More fun with HMRC's audit of old tax liabilities

2010-12-01T03:11:00.000-08:00

Looking at the on-line record of one of my clients the other day I noticed that a new underpayment of tax had appeared amounting to just under £500. So what, you may say. It is well known that HMRC have been trawling through their PAYE records looking for underpayments.

This one is different. Firstly, the client has been submitting Tax Returns for very many years though not until the last few with my firm's help. Secondly, the liability shown is apparently for the year ended 5th April 2000 (yes, 1999-2000) when the client self-assessed and actually (according to this record) received a repayment, which is now indicated to have been excessive.

There is no record of the underpayment on the separate Statement of Account on-line, and of course I called HM Revenue & Customs. The person I spoke to clearly thought I was mad. Her records only went back to 2003-04 (which one might expect), and as she could not see the screen I was looking at she really did seem to think I was imagining the whole thing. “It's right here in front of me” I said. “Well, I can't see it. It's not on the Statement.” “Yes, I know, but it's on my Agent's record for the client”.

There are times when if we were Basil Fawlty we would beat our head on the desk, but having had a word with her manager the HMRC person said she would send me a copy of the statement not showing this alleged underpayment and a copy of which I have already. This action will presumably allow HMRC to record that they have dealt with the issue, but probably the screen will show this supposedly uncollected tax forever. Of course I will not keep looking at it as I have other things to do, and yes, I could claim concessional relief, but there is no point as no one in HMRC can see the record even if I can.

I could rant about the time wasted, but it has given me a chuckle and reminded me of Basil with the absurdity of it all.

Royal wedding cant, hypocrisy, and the taxpayer

2010-11-18T02:49:00.000-08:00

Wills and Kate are getting married and I wish them every happiness. I hope this Royal wedding will be a great show too, although they should have it just as they want it.

Of course there is the usual whining from commentators and journalists that the taxpayer should not have to pay for this, and the Royal Family should stump up a good deal of the cost.

Well, like it or lump it, but the Royal Family is a tremendous asset to the United Kingdom. Overseas media take a huge interest. The Royals are still worth a huge amount in terms of exports and attract millions of tourists from around the world, many of whom will come especially for the wedding. Manufacture of memorabilia is already in full swing, and William has made sure by use of her engagement ring that the Diana factor will feature heavily. Money is going to pour into our country from around the world. Yes, a lot of people are going to make serious money and yes, a lot of tax is going to be raised by the Exchequer and it will be a great deal more than the cost of running the wedding including all the policing and security. It is probably a much better money-raiser than the Olympics.

No money is going to be diverted from hospitals or welfare because the tax raised is going to be extra money. I am less a Royal fan than I was, but let us not get diverted by those who have an agenda other than their pretence of social conscience.

Let us enjoy the Royal wedding and the financial benefit the Exchequer, our clients and we will derive from it.

HMRC are broken

2010-10-22T05:27:00.000-07:00

A pensioner who completes his own Tax Returns has been sent the Short Tax Return for the last few years. A Short Return is a paper form which has to be submitted annually by 31st October. He gets all his stuff together and sends in his Return at the beginning of August. Fairly promptly the Return is sent back to him. He is informed that as his foreign dividends exceeded £300 and are nearly £400 annually (because he had more than one account with a bank taken over by our Spanish friends, Santander) he has to fill in the full version Return. Do they enclose a full form for him to complete? No.

The pensioner telephones HMRC and after half an hour or so, gets to speak to someone, to ask for a form. None arrives.

The pensioner calls me (he is a relative) and tells me the tale. He tells me he is worried; he followed up his call with a letter on 1st September but had heard nothing. The October deadline is approaching. I told him that HMRC were unlikely to read his letter of 1st September until around Christmas. He said “I suppose I will have to try to file on-line”. Indeed that will be the case by the time I get to see him to help, otherwise he will have a £100 fine.

I don't like this blog to be a continual whinge about HMRC. However, most of the non-technical stuff I have to deal with is about this sort of nonsense where HMRC are simply not delivering any sort of service to those they have the temerity to call customers. The problem is partly about money, but many of the basic failures appear to be to do with management, organization and common sense. After all, if you tell a taxpayer he should fill in a different form, surely you should send him that form?

Good grief!

Fun with HMRC's Online Services Helpdesk

2010-10-16T05:47:00.000-07:00

I went through the authorisation process to act for a new client, which involves entering the client's Universal Tax Reference and post code on-line, following which the client is sent an Authentication Code which he or she gives to the agent. We agents enter this code and HMRC will talk to us about the client.

I duly completed this process for a new client, but the client did not appear on my on-line list of clients on HMRC's website. I called the on-line help desk and hung on for ages (well, twelve minutes) listening to their muzak before giving up and sending an email

“We gained authorisation as agent for this client two weeks ago via the on-line procedure but he does not appear on our on-line list in the agent’s pages on the website. Could you please investigate this and append his details to our list?

Please advise when this has been done.

Thanks and regards”

Their reply:

“Dear Mr Jon Stow
Thank you for your email.

Unfortunately we need more information to progress your enquiry. Please contact the Helpdesk on 0845 60 55 999 and have to hand your Agent Code and access to a computer. Then one of our advisors will be able to assist you further.
For security reasons specific personal data may have been removed from this email.

Regards
Online Services Helpdesk”

I responded, a little irritated I admit:

“I will telephone later, but only emailed you after hanging on for 12 minutes on the telephone this morning waiting in vain to be dealt with. Can't you call me?”

Their response:

“Dear Jon Stow
Thank you for your email.

We are unable to arrange a call back, we have all advisors on incoming calls to ensure we answer as many calls as possible.

For security reasons specific personal data may have been removed from this email.

Regards
Online Services Helpdesk”

Well, firstly they may be answering as many calls as possible but clearly there are many they are not answering, including mine. Secondly, in the time it took to reply to two emails, or even only to the second one, surely they could have picked up the phone and talked to me?

HMRC are so useless and inflexible in communication now at every level. Wholesale cuts appear to have been as much at the expense of common sense as money, but no matter how much agents and taxpayers keep pointing this out, and despite initiatives such as Working Together, HMRC's meetings with tax and accountancy professionals, where it matters no one is listening; apparently not even their head honcho, Dave Hartnett who was charged with making the cuts by Gordon Brown.

Frankly it is not only costing us agents money in wasted time, the inefficiency and lack of leadership and responsible staff must be costing HMRC more than it saves in reducing their staff's ability to deal with issues to the lowest common denominator.

Postscript: In the interest of fairness I should say that by telephoning on a Saturday I managed to speak to a helpful lady fairly promptly and it looks like the matter will be resolved, thanks to her. However, HMRC's delivery of customer service leaves a lot to be desired, not least that we would rather not be called customers.

HMRC postal delays can cause hardship

2010-10-13T02:09:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

My client has a part-time job. A year or so ago her husband was out of work for a short while. They both had to go to the JobCentre to see whether they qualified for benefit. They didn't qualify. However for some reason the JobCentre told HMRC that my client might be eligible for Jobseekers's Allowance. A year later HMRC issued a Coding to restrict allowances so that my client had to pay tax on her small salary because HMRC thought she had unemployment benefit as well as being employed.

I called HMRC and told them that my client is not in receipt of benefit and never has been. HMRC's call operative told me they will not issue a Code to refund tax that has already been deducted in error until my client obtains a letter from the JobCentre confirming that she never had any benefit. Her word and mine are not good enough. “Well” I said “you take three months to look at the post”. HMRC's person admitted this was true.

This should be a simple matter to deal with. However for an individual with small earnings HMRC's bureaucratic requirement for a letter from another Government department and refusal to take the word either of someone who completes a tax return or of her agent is quite likely to cause hardship. If HMRC was anywhere near up to date with the post it wouldn’t be a problem.

This sad state of affairs is due to cuts ordered by Gordon Brown. These cuts have made HMRC very inefficient and they fail to deliver a proper service to honest taxpayers. What hope they can catch the tax evaders? They very likely take three months to open all those letters from “A Well-wisher” grassing up the dishonest tax evaders and how long would it be before they took action? Actually a long time judging by how long it has takes to get people registered in the system when they have come clean of their own volition.

Wisdom of the aged

2010-10-07T02:00:00.000-07:00

Image via WikipediaIn the week of his death there has been a lot written about Sir Norman Wisdom, who was a very funny man of his time, and in my book a lot funnier than many so-called comedians about today. There was at least no smut in his work where he essentially played the fall guy or fool. In real life of course he was no fool at all, but a shrewd cookie.

From the tax profession's angle we think of him as the man who lost the silver bullion case against the Inland Revenue. He put a lot of money into silver bullion with a view to making a fairly quick profit at a time in the Sixties when the pound Sterling was on the slippery slopes of devaluation. To cut a long story short he was found to be trading and liable to income tax on the profits of that trade. It is one of a few cases where one or very few transactions has been construed as a trade rather than an investment strategy. There is more technical commentary I could make but this is not the time or place.

A couple of the obituaries noted that Sir Norman was a “tax exile” in the Isle of Man. There has even been some criticism of him for having made his money and then going offshore to keep more of his income. Actually the Isle of Man is quite a nice place to go when you reach normal retirement age. Sir Norman only went when he was 65. It has a mild climate and quite low rainfall, especially when you realise it is sandwiched between a wetter Ireland and Lake District. Anyway, why should it be deemed immoral to retire to a nice place and pay a lower rate of tax as a bonus?

By the same token, is it immoral to work in a Middle East country with no income tax and at a high salary and (oh dear) not be earning it in one's country of origin , the UK, and therefore avoid being charged to tax by being non-resident? I would have thought it was a way of being responsible and making provision for family, and after all, if you are not present in a country in which you are not paying tax, you are not using the facilities that taxes are supposed to pay for?

Has it really come to this? Have politicians and commentators been brainwashed into criticising anyone who either accidentally or deliberately makes arrangements to pay less tax? Goodness me! If we use the facilities of the hotel we should expect to pay for them. Why is anyone expected to pay for the facilities they no longer use, especially if their hard-earned cash has in the past helped to build this facilities.

Artificial contrivances to avoid paying tax may or may not be morally questionable depending on your point of view. They probably are. Using tax free investment options must be OK since the Government allows for them in legislation. Using methods of reward that suffer lower taxes is no different from buying your food at Lidl instead of Waitrose or Fortnum and Mason, is it? We buy our petrol at the cheapest places and avoid motorway service areas. We have the choice. Why pay more?

Not being in the UK is a matter of lifestyle choice, surely? I wish politicians, some journalists and tax campaigners would grow up.

HMRC cost -cutting will cost them dear

2010-09-16T06:02:00.000-07:00

HM Revenue and Customs has announced that in future, where a taxpayer is represented by an agent, that agent will no longer receive copies of various forms. The forms which now only taxpayers will receive include PAYE Coding Notices (really helpful as this is an area of problems currently). Other forms and letters which taxpayers' agents will no longer have include:

Letter advising of a new Universal Tax Reference and advising that a Tax Return will have to be completed in future.
Letter advising that a Tax Return will not be required in future.
Tax calculation form showing HMRC's computation of the annual liability.

HMRC thinks that they will save £1.25M in making this change. Of course in terms of paper and postage this may be true, but how much time in terms of telephone calls from agents will they waste when the taxpayers have failed to pass on the forms or in respect of Codings which should have been adjusted, but were not, due to a breakdown of communication between client and agent?

HMRC likes to refer to taxpayers as “customers”. We always say that if we taxpayers were customers we would take our business elsewhere. If we were really customers we would be contemplating loss of customer service without a cut in our charges. Anyway, in the end it is one more cut in HMRC which will make them more inefficient at a time when a few more properly qualified staff could actually bring them more money in. At the same time there is more cost and inconvenience to the public

I am all for cutting waste. It seems very short-sighted to make cuts which will end up costing more money and making communication harder. Are HMRC so deep in their dark tunnels that they have lost touch with the real world? It often seems like it.

PAYE corrections: tax advisers as spectators

2010-09-16T03:38:00.000-07:00

It might be thought that the audit of the PAYE system which has brought to light the overpayments and underpayments of tax under PAYE would bring in work for accountants and tax practitioners. This is not going to happen.

Overpayments of tax will be refunded by HMRC automatically. Those who have underpaid will fall into two categories. The first will be the people who knew their Codings were likely to be incorrect because they actually looked at them when the brown envelopes came through the post. Any anomalies will be because the benefit figures were wrong or the tax rates or allowances were wrong because there was a second job or a change in circumstances. It is likely that those who did not correct Codings which were wrong hoped that HMRC would not notice.

The second category will be those ostriches who never looked at their Codings. They will still not look; they will shrug their shoulders when they get notification of an underpayment.

Neither category of taxpayer will want to appoint an agent to manage the situation. It would be adding insult to injury to have to pay someone a fee when they already have to cough up some more tax. Anyway, in general it would not be worthwhile for agents to take anyone on as a client to look at their coding history. The fees which could be charged would not be sufficient to cover an agent's costs. Most of the people affected would not have a Universal Tax Reference (UTR) as they would not be filling in Tax Returns. That would mean that authorisation would have to be done with a paper application which would probably take three months for HMRC to process, by which time the Codings issue would be water under the bridge,

None of we agents' existing clients will have a problem. They will have had Tax Returns completed for them. Any overpayment or underpayment will have come out in the wash of Self Assessment.

So we can only look on, shake our heads, wonder at the noise and know that those who have underpaid probably knew there was an issue as they hid their heads in the sand.

PAYE overpayments, underpayments and intrusions

2010-09-12T06:18:00.000-07:00

This week has seen a media-whipped furore over the inadequacies of the PAYE system and I am not going to expand on what others have said. If you want a sensible summary of the position then please look here.

There are a couple of worrying things which go beyond the “failure” of HMRC's PAYE system. It has to be remembered that Dave Hartnett, the Permanent Secretary for Tax, who has taken a lot of flak for a slightly undiplomatic comment on BBC's Money Box is not a politician but a Civil Servant. If he were politician he would perhaps be more careful, but anyway he would gave been out of office with the change in Government if he had been simply in the pocket of Alastair Darling and more significantly, Gordon Brown. Of course in the longer term there might be a conflict with the new administration, but Mr. Hartnett has been in the higher echelons of HMRC for a while now.

The point is that the cumbersome PAYE system is not perfect. It is better than it was in providing information and that is how the discrepancies in tax collected have come to light. HMRC has been forced to make many spending cuts over the last few years, which can't have helped. These were mainly driven by Gordon Brown as Mr. Hartnett told a number of tax practitioners on the one occasion a couple of years ago when I had a chance to talk to him. If the system were perfect we would not be having a new consultation which is now in play to see how it can be overhauled.

Mr. Hartnett can be careless with his words as he was on the radio and perhaps when talking to us tax advisers a couple of years ago. He may be overly suspicious of motives behind questions as he seemed a little paranoid about the supposed involvement of all tax advisers in tax avoidance when he addressed the meeting I was at.

That does not mean that his privacy should be treated as a target by the media Yes, he is in charge of an important Government department, and should be more media-savvy. However, he didn't get to the top because he was no good. He was a successful Inspector of Taxes and was involved in a number of high profile cases on the Revenue's behalf. He is at the top because he is good and not because he is a politician.

I knew he lived in Hertfordshire because he told our group. I have no interest in his house or what cars his family owns. He is not a footballer or rock star who feeds off media interest and is seen as fair game for exposés (if anyone should be?). What he has, he has earned, but it is none of our business, and nor is it the business of a possibly fictional neighbour of his, quoted in a Sunday newspaper story.

Bank's poor service costs its customers dear

2010-08-23T04:09:00.000-07:00

Image via WikipediaI have High Net Worth (HNW) clients, and they are very important to me. They present more of a challenge and provide more variety in their tax affairs. Generally they are appreciative of the service they get and also they pay my bills promptly. All my clients are created and treated equally, but I am sure that I can be forgiven for saying that some are more rewarding to deal with.

Banks apparently treat HNW customers no differently from the rest of their customers. They may give their service a different title such as Private Banking or Premier Banking, and in theory HNW customers might have a real person allocated in a branch whom they can talk to, but when it comes to the important things they seem to be in the same boat as everyone else.

I have had considerable trouble with one bank (light blue eagle emblem). Some years ago a client had an enquiry into her tax return when apparently the bank had failed to advise her of all the deposit interest she had received and consequently it did not go on the return. This was despite the bank's assurance they had found details of all interest arising to the client. It turned out that where an account had been closed before 5th April it did not show up on their list and consequently the interest was not notified to the client. If the account had been opened within the past year neither the customer nor the agent would be looking for interest details since the account would not have had interest to declare in the earlier year.

Now it has happened again even though I wrote three letters to the Bank last year and the client eventually had to make a special journey to the branch to get the relevant information. Somehow, and quite properly, the bank always manages to advise HMRC concerning all the accounts, but not the recipients of the interest, their own customers.

My client is likely to face a penalty and certainly interest on tax which should have been due last year. She cannot be expected to know whether the figures the bank gives her are complete when they open and close “bond” accounts with such frequency, and an aspect of being wealthy is that there is much more to keep track of and that is why HNWs pay extra to have people manage their affairs. Despite her Premier Banking plainly the bank does not deliver.

Of course the client and I will complain. The bank will apologize and then very likely will re-offend, and it will be so difficult to spot the offence until the letter from HMRC drops on the mat.

Do you have the same trouble with the banks? How do you deal with it?

© Jon Stow 2010

HMRC postal delays and a re-think from me

2010-07-18T04:06:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

As you will know if you have been a regular reader of Taxing Times, about a month ago I copied all the postings up to date to my main business website, and you can see them here together with the new postings since the transfer. However, a guy can change his mind. I realised I did still want to continue to talk about the day-to-day running of my business and express my views perhaps a little more freely than might be appropriate on a company website, so I have decided that this blog will live on. At the same time, we have had the opportunity to introduce a new look and I hope you like it. Please do follow both blogs.

One of the problems that HMRC “customers” experience is getting their correspondence dealt with. Actually the real issue is the length of time HMRC may take to actually read what has been sent to them, As a practitioner, I know that some of my clients find it hard to believe how long things take. Some matters can be dealt with easily over the telephone, but anything involving the completion of a paper form can take absolutely ages.

HMRC admits that 7% of post relating to PAYE Coding issues is currently not dealt with three months after receipt. One particular consequence I have seen is that a client has now received three questionnaire forms P161 relating to a new private pension. I filled in the first one my client received promptly and it was signed and sent off. Meanwhile over three months HMRC's computers have churned out two more. I have explained to the client what is happening and have telephoned HMRC but that makes more work for me for which I will not be paid.

I keep my clients is the loop, but HMRC's delays in dealing with simple matters do stretch credibility. To be fair, they are open about these deficiencies and have kept us agents informed. I am not divulging some secret information from a Revenue mole.

Of course the problems are due to spending cuts; not the programme of cuts now proposed by the Coalition, but the cuts imposed by the previous Government. HMRC has far less qualified staff (people who know about tax who would command higher salaries) and relies on call centres for much of their interaction with the public. The operators are only trained in the basics and if they are presented with anything beyond those they have to send an email to an anonymous person in the relevant office and even we agents are not told who so it is harder for us to follow up if something isn't dealt with.

Do you experience delays dealing with HMRC? Is there any practice topic you would like me to cover?

Taxing Times has moved

2010-05-30T04:35:00.000-07:00

Taxing Times has moved to a new place, which you can find here. Everything posted here has gone to the new place, and if you have commented, those comments are preserved in the new blog.

If you have been kind enough to subscribe for an email alert here, may I trouble you to do so again the new place, if you so wish?

Thank you for reading and I hope to see you again soon in the blog's new home.

Jon

A brief history of my time in tax

2010-04-24T05:35:00.000-07:00

Image by alancleaver_2000 via Flickr

I am not going to tell you how long I have been working in tax, but suffice it to say I have a lot of experience. Things have changed so much that it seems to me that the public in general still entertains ideas about tax which are long outdated if indeed they were ever correct in the first place.

Once upon a time in the UK tax system, people did not get tax bills unless they actually sent in their income tax returns. In the distant past, there were two arms of the old Inland Revenue. One dealt with assessing tax at the standard rate (now called the basic rate) after deducting personal allowances, and the other charged the higher rates of tax which were due. This higher rate of tax was called surtax, only a small percentage of the population had income which went into the surtax bands, and the Revenue did not send out a tax bill until they had a Return; some were sent in very late for understandable reasons.

I am telling you this because strangely, some people still believe in a similar philosophy. If they delay sending in a tax return, they believe they won't have to pay the tax. That is not a good approach to modern taxation and at the very least will incur interest charges and statutory penalties as well as a wild guess by HMRC in terms of a tax demand in the absence or a return.

The biggest change to taxation in the UK in the last fifty years or so was the introduction of the Self Assessment process in the nineties. Effectively this is supposed to do what it says on the tin. The taxpayer has to work out his or her tax liability and pay it to HMRC. HMRC checks the figures using their software. Not surprisingly many taxpayers use agents such as my firm to do their tax returns for them and work out their tax positions. This huge shift of responsibility from HMRC to the taxpayer to calculate the tax due was a cost-saving measure in terms of the number of staff theoretically needed to be retained as HMRC Civil Servants. The costs saved by the Government were shifted to the taxpayer who either had to spend valuable time working out his or her tax position, or pay someone else to do it

The shifting of responsibility also shifted the burden of scrutiny, at least initially, to the taxpayer and the agent. Prior to Self Assessment, as long as there was full disclosure of the facts in a tax return, there was a tendency for taxpayers and sometimes for their agents to “try it on”.

For example, I remember a long time ago a science writer claiming in his accounts for a new and expensive pair of glasses (spectacles was the technical term) on the basis that he could not see to do his work without them. He insisted that my then firm put in for the deduction. We knew that a real person in an Inland Revenue office should look at the accounts and write us a letter saying why the expense had been disallowed, which would be on the basis that the client needed the glasses in the course of his everyday life, not just when he sat at his desk to write. As you might understand, a claim for some tax relief on a microscope would have been more in order. Actually the accounts went through unchallenged and the glasses got tax relief. This was felt to be acceptable in our office because the Revenue had not been misled but had not picked up on the deduction when they had the chance.

Now we have to do HMRC's job for them, and they are anyway far more aggressive in chasing down supposed errors and incorrect claims in the returns that they pick out for enquiry after we have done all the work for them. They will attempt to charge penalties for anything much beyond simple errors, and will certainly charge interest on tax paid late as a result of an amendment to a return.

Doing HMRC's job for them entails scrutiny of every item of expenditure and every allowance claimed. We have clients who will be very unhappy to accept our advice. As you will understand, especially in view of incidents such as the spectacles affair, many people still do not accept that the tax world has changed. We get comments along the lines of “in my old company we used to claim for our days at the races” even though this was either a benefit that never got charged to tax or was client entertainment which should have properly disallowed in the company tax computations even way back.

We have to be strict with claims for deduction of expenditure, we have to present as much information as we can about any unusual item and we have to follow strict accounting rules, which was not always the case. We have to report any uncorrected errors we pick up, and under the Money Laundering Regulations we as agents have to report any suspicions we have concerning possible dishonesty spotted in the course of our business; that of our clients (fair enough) and former clients but also other people's clients, and we must not tell the people reported that we have done so.

I have no problem reporting the dishonest of course. What is a worry is that I could be punished for not suspecting someone that a Government Agency thinks I should have.

Nowadays, we have to report any even mildly artificial scheme to avoid tax when making a tax return. We have to put up with bullying enquiries made by HMRC where they may be wrong, but the cost of going to the Tax Tribunal to appeal may be more than a client can afford in monetary terms in exceeding the extra tax which might be due. An appeal might be simply more than the client can stomach in terms of worry. HMRC is not always right. Their interpretation of the law is not always correct but they might have their way because if a taxpayer sees the leviathan coming for them that person may throw in the towel..

So, in summary, we cannot “get away” with a claim which would not stand proper scrutiny, our records must be good, and we must remember that taxpayers challenged by HMRC are guilty until proven innocent. Do not ask me to try anything on. I will make a claim for you if it has good merit and precedent because I have been round the block. I will do my best and might well know a quite legitimate relief that a taxpayer-client would not know about. Just don't tell me that you want to claim a deduction because someone at the club or on the checkout at the supermarket told you it was all right.

© Jon Stow 2010

What are golden hellos?

2010-04-01T10:46:00.000-07:00

Having talked about golden handshakes I ought to mention the “golden hello”, which is a payment made to a future director or employee. It is just possible (only just!)that a payment received from someone other than the new employer – a third party - could be construed as non-taxable.

Where a lump sum payment is made to a prospective new employee, it will be taxed as advance pay for future services unless it represents compensation for some right or asset given up on taking up the employment. An example going back to the 1950s was where an amateur rugby player gave up that status upon turning professional. In those days there was no turning back to amateur status and therefore to return to Rugby Union from the professional Rugby League. His payment was held not to be taxable. In modern times the case for a payment escaping tax would be hard to sustain given the general attitude of HMRC where even a perfectly arguable situation would fall in the face of the expense of defending it.

Usually a payment to a prospective employee about to join will be an emolument of his or her employment and therefore subject to tax and NIC. Effectively it is a signing-on fee similar to that offered to former England goalkeeper Peter Shilton upon his transfer from Nottingham Forest to Southampton (Shilton v Wilmshurst (64TC78) 1991). Lord Templeman explained “An emolument 'from employment' means an emolument 'from being or becoming an employee.' The authorities are consistent with this analysis and are concerned to distinguish in each case between an emolument which is derived 'from being or becoming an employee' on the one hand, and an emolument which is attributable to something else on the other hand.'”

Peter Shilton's payment was found to be taxable in full and almost always this will be the rule for payments made to employees prior to or upon their starting a new job.

© Jon Stow 2010

What are golden handshakes?

2010-04-01T10:33:00.000-07:00

Golden handshakes are payments to an individual upon termination of employment and may also be known as lump sum payments.

There are cases where such payments are not taxed at all, which are those post-death when an employee has died in service, and in some cases payments due to disability may qualify for exemption. Those are outside the norm.

For the most part termination payments are taxable under special rules. The first £30,000 of a leaving payment will be exempt from tax if it is an ex-gratia payment and therefore non-contractual. One may have to make the case to HMRC that the payment is not for services rendered and that there was no obligation on behalf of the employer.

Otherwise, payments in lieu of notice (PILONs- how we love these acronyms) are taxable if contractual in the sense that the employee's contract specifies that the employer will make a PILON if the employee is asked not to work notice.

If the contract does not specify this, being silent on the position where the employee is asked to leave without working notice, then the first £30,000 may qualify for the tax exemption because it then represents “damages” for breach of contract. However, if the employer habitually follows the practice of paying terminated employees in lieu of notice even though the contract does not specify this then HMRC may take the view that the first £30,000 is taxable because an employee would have the expectation and the employer probably the intention from the outset.

A true redundancy payment should qualify for the £30,000 exemption, but must be supportable as genuine on the evidence available.

If you are starting to think this whole area of leaving payments is a minefield, you would be right. If you are an employer planning on letting some of your workers go, you should get professional advice.

If you are an employee on the receiving end of both your notice and a proposed payment, you would also be wise to get professional advice before the agreement, and also in completing your Self Assessment Tax Return later. The level of taxation on any non-exempt amount might also depend on what level of income you have in the year you receive your payment, and often if you are not seeking further work you will benefit by having your termination payment at the beginning of a tax year in April or May so that it will not be aggregated with a whole year's pay.

The golden rule for golden handshakes is to seek professional advice.

© Jon Stow 2010

Budget 2010 - I am not going to say “me too”

2010-03-31T09:21:00.000-07:00

One usually annual problem for tax practitioners is that we are expected to have instant knowledge of every bit of information announced in the Budget almost straight away. There was in fact very little of substance in the March Budget of 2010, which is not surprising given that we are having a General Election probably on 6th May, and what Chancellor would announce anything unpleasant and painful in such a situation?

There is no point in publishing here a commentary on the Budget announcements. The newspapers have covered what there was in depth, and for a more insightful examination of the Budget scraps I recommend AccountingWeb.

The real Budget will be from the post-election administration in May. It is going to hurt, whoever delivers it, but we will have more certainty that measures already announced will actually come in, and will know about those new ones as yet unannounced. That is all!

Weighing up whether your workers are employed or self-employed

2010-03-10T10:00:00.000-08:00

There was an interesting tax case before the First Tier Tax Tribunal in respect of which the decision was announced in February. It was much reported in the tax press and tax circles, but also in the national broadsheets. The case involved a very well known company, Weight Watchers Limited, which is a subsidiary of Weight Watchers International.

The case was not remarkable in the sense that many people treated as self-employed have subsequently been found to be employed, and it was unremarkable also in that the usual tests were applied, which are in respect of the amount of control the provider of work has over its workers. The remarkable element is that Weight Watchers have gone so long in the UK without HMRC having mounted a challenge. I suppose they would have been taking advice from their accountants over a number of years.

In this case the tribunal determined that there were a number of indicators that WW leaders, those who run the classes around the country, were employees and that the wordings and requirements of their contracts made them so. These included:

1.WW could replace a leader if they did not feel the leader was representing WW correctly in a contract which existed between the company and the member, not between the leader and the member.

2.The Company decided on the timings and places of meetings indicating a degree of control.

3.Most of the guidance to help the leader hold successful meetings given by WW was 'mandatory rather than aspirational'.

4.WW required certain targets of the leaders including maintaining their weight within their 'gold goal weights'.

5.The takings collected in meetings were insured by Company and had to be paid over within 24 hours of being collected for them.

There are other rules concerning the taking of holidays, regular supervisory observers being sent to classes by the company and so on, which appear to indicate that the company is very much “hands-on” when it comes to controlling their workers in the field.

To be self-employed and to borrow from HMRC's booklet ES/FS2, one needs to ask:

• Can the worker hire someone to do the work, or take on helpers at their own expense?

• Can the worker decide where to provide the services of the job, when to work, how to work and what to do?

• Can the worker make a loss as well as a profit?

• Does the worker agree to do a job for a fixed price regardless of how long the job may take?

I have no argument with these and if a worker does not satisfy these basic principles then he or she is probably an employee.

Of course no two cases are exactly the same. The Company is going to appeal against the tribunal decision and they may make a good case for all I know, but it does indicate for every business that before deciding a worker is self-employed they need to look at the facts on their merits.

As a result of the defeat of the company by HM Revenue & Customs, £23M has been provided in the company accounts as a liability which may have to be met, and this would be in respect of the PAYE tax and Employer's and Employee's National Insurance Contributions over a number of years for which they may now find themselves responsible. The possible tax hit has been shown as $37M in the international group's accounts.

I am not sure whether this sum is related to the full PAYE liability or if the Company is assuming that they can take into account tax already self-assessed and paid by their workers on their hitherto presumed self-employed basis. Guidance from HMRC following a fairly recent case, Demibourne Ltd v HMRC SpC 486, says HMRC will effectively allow credit for such tax assessed on a self-employed basis in these cases. Where the worker has not paid tax self-assessed, the Company will not have a remedy.

We await the appeal with interest, but remember that if you tell a worker when to turn up and how to do the job and that person has to ask for time off and holidays, he or she is probably an employee, whether an engineer, a bar person or an office cleaner.

© Jon Stow 2010

Late, late tax planning

2010-03-07T05:48:00.000-08:00

The 2009 Pre-Budget Report in December signalled a significant number of tax increases in the UK designed to make up the significant Budget deficit following the banking crisis. For many or our clients there will be a significant impact on their finances.
-Income tax rates to rise and personal allowances to reduce for wealthier clients.
-Future changes to rates applicable for dividends, trusts and NICs.
-New 50% income tax band.

There are further complicated rules for pension relief restriction and the end of well-established tax breaks for furnished holiday lettings (currently enjoying business tax advantages). There is speculation about an increase in capital gains tax and I have heard different forecasts from various commentators.

We have about three weeks to do some quick planning which may mitigate in some part the higher tax payable on income receivable after 5th April 2010. It might be slightly less if restrictions are brought in with the 2010 Budget, for which we still await a date.

From 6 April 2010 there are higher rates of tax and fewer reliefs. Those earning in excess of £150,000 will be subject to a ‘super-tax’ of 50% on income over that threshold.

Furthermore, personal allowances will be restricted for those earning more than £100,000, at the rate of £1 for every £2 of income above that figure. As the current personal allowance is being frozen at £6,475 this means the full allowance will be extinguished at an income level of £112,950.

The gradual tapering of the allowance – within the narrow banding of £100,000 to £112,950 – means that where income falls within these limits, the effective rate of income tax is 60%.

In the current fiscal year ending in April it may be possible to convert income chargeable at 50% to gains chargeable at 18% or even an effective 10%. It would really depend on the circumstances of course, so no idle promises.

From 6 April 2010 there will be three rates of tax on dividend income. Where income falls within the basic rate band, the 10% tax credit will extinguish any liability, as before. The equivalent rate for 40% taxpayers remains at 32.5%, but a new rate of 42.5% will be introduced where income will be taxed at the new rate of 50%.

National Insurance contributions (NICs) are due to rise from April 2011 (a further year on), but if these go ahead as planned they will add another 1% to the rate, which is a significant uplift and may be a very sobering thought as people look ahead. Businesses could consider paying themselves in advance through salary or dividends, or paying their employees early bonuses but these are tough times from the point of view of cash flow. Still, any available option should be considered.

Our clients' finances and tax positions need to be looked at in the round; taxation of small businesses is inextricably linked to the reward and taxation of their owners and their families. Whilst high earners will bear the brunt of the initial increases, every taxpayer will feel the effect. These are tough times and tough decisions need to be made, although not to the long-term detriment of the businesses themselves. In addition, with a General Election in the offing we can only plan in the short term based on what we know now.

If you know anyone who may be affected make sure that their accountants and tax advisers are reviewing their tax positions in these next few weeks. Of course you may wish to talk to me about how I can help. Not everyone will have the flexibility to adjust their financial strategy, but it is worth checking.

Accountants' tax “amnesty” - I was joking, you know!

2010-02-24T11:10:00.000-08:00

When I wrote about the Tax Health Plan proposed by HMRC, and asked which profession might be next, I was joking when I added accountants to my list; really I was. My idle fantasy might be about to come true as it is reported "Accountants could be next for tax amnesty". Of course the original report was in the Mail, so a pinch of salt may be needed.

Flattered though I am that Dave Hartnett might be one of my loyal readers, I really do not believe that accountants, tax advisers, bookkeepers or any allied profession should have a special deal if they have been fiddling their taxes. All such groups should be treated more harshly if they are on the fiddle in the same way as crooked HMRC employees, bank employee thieves and bent coppers because all are in a position to know more clearly what is right and what is wrong.

We are in a privileged position of trust and if our professions cannot be trusted then “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"; certainly not our professional bodies or HMRC because any action taken by them in terms of policing would be after the event? Anyway, after any settlement under the Accountants Tax Plan, should an offender be reported to his or her professional body? Presumably not in terms of HMRC confidentiality, but should the transgressor be banned as a tax agent?

HMRC is sending out dreadfully mixed messages to the profession, with the big stick in one hand and the soft soap in the other. Give us a break in terms of working with us as agents, but please don't give any dodgy accountants a way out.

© Jon Stow 2010

Scary tax planning in a changing world

2010-02-14T06:46:00.000-08:00

I cannot remember a time when the tax regime in Britain was in a position of such flux. As we know the cost of the banking crisis and the recession has cost the government, or at least UK plc dearly. There is a huge deficit to be made up, exacerbated by the futile policy of reducing VAT from 17.5% to 15% for thirteen months. There is talk that after the election whoever is in power will have to raise VAT to 20%. There is not much we can do to mitigate this in advance, and from the Government's point of view, indirect taxation on sales is inescapable. We are all paying VAT on a daily basis, and we have to hope that any currently exempt or zero-rated goods and services will not have a charge imposed.

At these sorts of times and particularly in advance of an election the parties find themselves painted into a corner. Are they honest and admit that services will have to be cut and that charges will have to be made in the NHS and in education, or do they keep quiet and get on with doing what they perceive is necessary when in power after May (we still assume the election will be in May)? Will taxation be raised even more after May?

Regular readers of this blog will know that my view is that increases in taxation are counter-productive because they encourage dishonesty. I don't like it, but that is the reality, especially in the cash businesses HMRC hate, but frankly are not equipped to do anything about. Those professionally represented businesses have a close eye kept on them by the likes of us, but many who are not and particularly those who are not even registered at all (the black economy) are very hard to catch. This does not bode well for the immediate future because we then have a division between the honest and highly-taxed legitimate law-abiding business and the dishonest who are better off because they do not pay their taxes and are robbing HMRC and therefore all the rest of us doing our best to stay on the straight and narrow..

So, what do we professionals do? There is some tax planning which seems tempting in terms of the 2009 Pre-Budget Report. We know that the rate of income tax is going up to 50% for taxable income over £150,000. There is also a withdrawal of personal allowances on income over £100,000, which means that there is a marginal rate of 60% for incomes just over £100K and when you add in National Insurance the situation seems scary. What do we tell our clients to do? Have their bonuses now (unless they are in the bankers' trap), have them much later, or leave the country?

Well of course, it might be an idea for owner-managers to pay themselves dividends at 32.5% instead of 42.5% after April if they are in that sort of league. It might be sensible for spouses and partners to equalise their incomes to reduce rates, but frankly those sorts of arrangements may well be in place, especially as the income-shifting legislation is currently on the shelf because it was impractical and ill-thought out. However, being impractical and ill-thought out has not always prevented legislation from being introduced, and there is still the spectre of perhaps a higher charge on dividends in general or an imposition of NIC.

Our clients should talk to their financial advisers in view of the changes to the pension regime from April and the further restrictions on tax relief on premiums paid.

The whole point is that I cannot remember a period of so much uncertainty in the tax world. In past years we have planned ahead, but now we can and must take action on many fronts before April, because we know not what is round the corner. Our planning may not help our clients after April, but we must talk to them to see what we can do now.

From a business point of view, the one thing worse than a recession is the inability to plan ahead, because who knows what tax costs are round the corner? That is why I wish the party in power could be more candid about its general plan on tax increases. I wish the opposition would say that whilst it cannot reduce the proposed increases in the short term it will not invent any new taxes and that it will cut services, so that at least we know where we stand. The election is badly needed in terms of politics, but it is getting in the way of all our lives in terms of knowing where we stand or fall. How can a business make plans if it has no projection on costs?

Be responsible and pay your tax

2010-02-04T05:37:00.000-08:00

Last Spring I wrote a piece entitled “Render unto Caesar...” which pretty much sets out my view concerning tax avoidance and those who are reluctant to pay tax. For the record I reiterate that I have no objection to people taking sensible uncomplicated steps to pay less tax. That is no different from choosing to fill your car with petrol, diesel or gas at a particular establishment which charges a little less than the one down the road. Daily essentials everyone buys on price because the value is the same. Complicated and artificial tax avoidance schemes really have no place in a responsible society.

There is a moral case to pay a fair share of tax. We may not like a particular Government but we all use the infrastructure, the roads, education, the health service and so on, and we should cough up according to our fair share. There are occasional refuseniks who choose to withhold a portion e.g. of their perceived share of the defence budget, quoting moral grounds, and they may at least appear principled if foolhardy in making a futile stand against the system, though at least gaining publicity for their cause.

What really gets my goat is those who dodge the system, take cash so that it does not go through their books and appear in their accounts (“save the VAT, mate?”) and those who fiddle in other ways, such as inflating their business expenses. None of these people are clients of us professional practitioners of course, because if we sign them up they are in the system they wish to avoid, and subject to our scrutiny.

Just the same, it is certain that there are still many tax dodgers and if any are reading this, let me tell you that if you have dodged £5,000 of tax you have stolen it from the Government and from us taxpayers and it is no different from stealing £5,000 from the state-owned Post Office. The punishment on getting caught may not be the same, but perhaps it should be? It is money taken from our back pockets.

The financial penalties for tax evasion have been raised subject to various targeted initiatives in particular areas. Should we see more custodial sentences? How can more dishonest tax evaders be caught given the limited resources of HMRC? What do you think?

© Jon Stow 2010

HMRC tackles the medical profession with the Tax Health Plan

2010-01-16T09:16:00.000-08:00

We professionals in the tax business are fond of offering tax health checks to prospective clients, but now we should be offering health checks to medical professionals, who are the target of HMRC's latest campaign to collect tax from perceived miscreants. I am sure the Revenue is not suggesting that all in the health business are into dodgy dealing and falsifying their tax returns, but presumably there must be a supposition that “extras” such as giving references to patients, signing passport applications and getting payments from pharmaceutical companies slip through into doctors' pockets unnoticed by their accountants or tax advisers. Those targeted who have something to report must notify their intention to do so by 31st March 2010 and have until 30th June 2010 to have made the disclosure and arranged to pay any tax that is due.

Given that we have had two opportunities for people to disclose their offshore bank accounts and we have the ongoing Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility, the HMRC tactic is simply to concentrate the minds of a particular group of taxpayers. I doubt that doctors are any worse or any better than many other trades or professions. I assume this must be the first of many initiatives targeting various sections of the business community.

Who will be next on the list? Pharmacists? Tyre fitters? Plumbers? Wheel-tappers and shunters? Accountants and allied professions? It is a novel idea to put each sector under the microscope, but it will take an awfully long time to get through the list. I hope HMRC gets some tax dodgers to confess, but doubt the tax take will be significant from each campaign, especially given the disappointing response to the recently closed second campaign on offshore accounts.

© Jon Stow 2010

Details of the HMRC Tax Health Plan

A tax practitioner's view of the economy - why we have reason to be worried

2010-01-12T07:37:00.000-08:00

Dealing as I do with the nitty-gritty results of small business owners' efforts, I am puzzled by some of the predictions for the economic recovery and in relation to the recent short term sales figures of certain more successful stores, notably John Lewis, Marks and Spencer, and House of Fraser.

My perception is that service businesses have had a very poor year, and it is perhaps poorer in 2009-10 than for the 2008-09 period to March last year.

I believe there is a huge gap between the self-employed (and I include micro businesses operating through companies) and those still in employment, living on at least the same salary or wage that they have had previously. The latter group has benefited from slight deflation and the desperation of the stores to shift goods at smaller margins, but I believe principally because the crash in interest rates has given employees with mortgages extra cash to spend. I remember from childhood the game we used to play, calling out "I am on Tom Tiddler's ground". Those still waged or salaried with lower household costs are spending what used to be the mortgage money at the sales, rather than saving it for a rainy day as many of us might think they should. They are in the privileged if uncertain position of Tom Tiddler's ground. Saving is bound to be rather discouraged also because of the lower interest rates, but people have forgotten how to be prudent and save.

I worry that the whole effect of a 0.5% bank rate is to distort the true economy (understandably in many ways) but means that many more chickens are likely to come home to roost as small business struggles along, the jobs market contracts on some of the current big spenders, and the tax hikes bite after the election. The latter will come, no matter who is in Government. Thus the double-dip graph of the nation's economic forecast - a "W" - seems the most likely scenario with little sustained improvement for two or three years.

That is how it seems on the ground as a small business owner looking after other small business owners, and I wish it were different.

© Jon Stow 2010

Business, Small business, House of Fraser, Employment, John Lewis, Money, Economy, Marks & Spencer, interest rates, double-dip, taxation, hike, tax increase

More on catching the tax dodgers

2009-12-17T15:07:00.000-08:00

It was announced last month that HMRC's New Disclosure Opportunity deadline for those with undeclared offshore assets to come clean has been extended from 30th November 2009 to 4th January 2010. This is no doubt because rather fewer delinquent “customers” have come forward than Permanent Secretary for Tax Dave Hartnett hoped, despite the prospect of much more serious penalties for those who are caught or come forward later.

HMRC has also revamped its process for receiving anonymous tip-offs concerning tax evaders, details of which are here. To be truly anonymous, one would suppose that many would baulk at filling in an on-line form, given that web masters can generally see the IP address of whoever logs in to a web page; that is if they really want to. Similar identification issues would deter people from sending faxes.

I have a vision of the other choices:

1.Telephoning the 0800 number, remembering to withhold the caller's number, and then speaking in a hoarse whisper to drop the malefactor in it.
2.Sending an anonymous missive either with letters cut out of newspapers and stuck on to another sheet of paper, or longhand notes in purple or green ink, signed “Well-wisher” or “Bystander”.

The mind boggles, or at least mine does, but that may be the effect of Christmas being nearly upon us and my having done far too many Tax Returns for my own good.

© Jon Stow 2009

Fairer and more reasonable - equitable liability survives

2009-12-12T11:49:00.000-08:00

Not all was bad news in the Pre-Budget Report. I wrote in September about HM Revenue & Customs' intention to abolish the practice of Equitable Liability. I said that if HMRC thought they did not have a legal basis for this discretionary power then legislation could correct this. Mr. Darling is to introduce just such a measure.

I think this is a rare victory for the taxpayer and I congratulate Keith Gordon for his campaign and petition which I feel must have contributed to this change of heart.

Dodging the Excise Men – encouraging a tax evasion society

2009-12-12T11:38:00.000-08:00

In my business we frown upon tax evasion. It is our duty to uphold the law through helping our clients in their self assessment of their income, profits and their company accounts. We have to tread a firmer line than Joe or Jo Public, though unrepresented taxpayers may make mistakes in the Revenue's favour as well as their own. It is my experience that they do.

This week we have seen further hikes in taxation, principally through National Insurance and more obviously the return to 17.5% VAT. Personal Allowances are frozen for next year, so there will be some increase in the tax take through fiscal drag if there is any inflation in the interim. We will have to see. The Government has to balance the books having borrowed and spent so much on the banks and on the reduction in VAT this past year, the latter with no perceivable effect on the economy as many of us predicted in November 2008. It has to be paid for, and the full horror of the eventual deficit has yet to be revealed, and will only be known after the election next May, when either the Tories will be biting the bullet amidst squeals, or New (Old) Labour will have to come clean.

In the past, the higher the level of taxation, the less actual tax take. The lower the rates, the higher the honesty level and the better the tax take. This was seen notably in the tax-cutting eighties in the UK and especially under Reaganomics in America when the IRS profited greatly from lower rates of taxation.

People are going to be much less willing to pay their legal dues and HM Revenue & Customs do not have the resources to enforce payment through more investigation. I am not sure they even have enough resources (people) good enough to deal with the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility. If you want a steady flow of anything including tax, you need a reliable channel. If you hike up tax, especially with HMRC's technical staff pared to the bone it is like trying to collect rainwater in a cup. In a deluge your cup will overflow. Most of it will escape. You need a measured channel and that means a more prosperous economy with a population willing to pay tax rather than driving more people into dishonesty to feed their families.

I think we will inevitably see a return to more dodgy dealing, and it will become popular like the public support for smugglers against the Excise Men in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. You will get more questions in shops such as “Do you want a receipt because I will have to charge VAT? Can you give me cash?.” and we know into whose back pocket those notes will go. The trouble is the tax which should have been paid by the trader will be coming out of your and my back pockets instead. How can we have got back to the bad old days?

© Jon Stow 2009

References

Smugglers and Excise Men
Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility

Quasi prospects, time-wasters and an experiment in human nature

2009-12-06T13:30:00.000-08:00

Sometimes we know what is going to happen but we just carry on anyway to see if we are right, even if we get nothing out of it except the satisfaction of being prescient. So it was the other night when events unfolded as expected.

It began with a telephone call from the wife of a former client whom I had dug out of a big hole he had got himself into. She said she was starting a business and was worried about tax issues. Could I visit her? “The initial consultation is free isn’t it?” I already knew how the cards would fall as I confirmed there was no charge for the first meeting. “How much will you charge for my tax return and accounts?" I told her a figure if her records were in good order.

My caller then asked for an evening meeting not before 7:30 to 8 and only on certain days; very inconvenient for me, but I do normally try to accommodate people. I ended up seeing her after a long day with other clients and frankly wishing I could put my feet up.

I had a long discussion with her about this and that. I did not give too much away in terms of free tax advice (I am not that daft) but did give a fair number of tips about starting in business, networking, and recommendations for SEO experts (mentioned Nikki Pilkington) and was generally helpful. She then asked me how she should keep her accounting records for me, on which of course I advised her.

She then asked me whether I could reduce my quote given on the telephone as she did not have much money yet (she had spent four times as much as she needed to on a new computer). I said that my figure was very reasonable for my excellent service. She then said that she would try to do her first accounts and return herself and thanked me for my time. I was able to make a joke as I left, because after all, I was only acting in a play and knew how it would end.

One puzzle is that I do not understand why people cannot see obvious value in good services whilst overspending on shiny gadgets they do not need. However, the real mystery is how people who have no intention of buying deliberately try to suck what they can from those around them without any intention of giving anything in return.

I had put myself out to attend the meeting just to see if my instincts were still on the button but I will avoid getting myself into the same situation anytime soon as it will spoil my average. Normally I only have warm leads anyway but I count this as only about the third time I had failed to “close” a tax client in half a dozen years. It was worth the time cost, though, in terms of this experiment in human nature.

© Jon Stow 2009

Pitfalls in faulty contracts – partnership and shareholder’s agreements

2009-11-25T02:06:00.000-08:00

I have been writing elsewhere about the dangers of using templates and adapting borrowed contracts and agreements rather than paying for professionals to draw up new ones. It is time to be specific.

With regard to partnership business assets, there are generous, though one might say prudent, reliefs from inheritance tax which can amount to 100% of the value of the capital account and 50% of the share of buildings, land, and plant and machinery. That means that the heirs have the opportunity to receive up to the whole value of a deceased partner’s share of a business, depending on circumstances. However, partnership agreements understandably aim to preserve a business beyond the death of a partner, and therefore there is often a clause allowing the remaining partners to acquire the interest of the deceased member. That is a sensible arrangement, but a partnership agreement should give the living partners an option to purchase but not a requirement to do so. If they have an obligation that would be considered a debt due under contract in the eyes of HM Revenue & Customs, and business property relief would be lost, incurring a tax liability at 40% on what might be a very considerable amount.

A similar problem might arise if in a shareholders’ agreement, upon the death of a participator, shares which would otherwise have qualified for business property relief would not do so because the other members were obliged to acquire the shares of the deceased rather than having an option to do so.

Of course there is a lot more to this subject than I have mentioned. Every situation needs to be looked at separately and financial advisers may have solutions as to how help the still living members buy the interests of the deceased estate once we understand that they should not be obliged to do so.

As with all legal documents, with a partnership or shareholders agreement, get professional advice before diving in, and do not re-hash other people’s work because they might have got it wrong or the circumstances in which they were acting may have been different.

© Jon Stow 2009

Amateur tax management and why businesses need professional tax advice

2009-10-31T11:54:00.000-07:00

I had a telephone call this week from a chap who said “I am phoning because I want to start a company”. My immediate reaction after thanking him for the call was to ask why he needed a company, if he meant a limited company. This is because from the tax point of view it is not necessarily a good idea to have a company, and there needs to be a commercial reason if profits are going to be limited initially or there might be trading losses which would be useful to an individual who is a current taxpayer-employee, or has recently been one.

It turned out that there was a commercial reason for having a company. The guy is going to do outsourced work for a Government department which insists on contracting its labour through a company. That in itself is laughable in an era in which HMRC has tried to crack down on such arrangements through IR35, attacked umbrella company arrangements, and whined, actually quite unreasonably, about “false self-employment” in the construction industry. One wonders whether the different branches of Government in Whitehall ever speak to each other.

My caller earned himself some “Brownie points” in my book by actually asking a professional adviser. So often people do not when they should, and I am not talking about the pensioners I mentioned in my previous piece, who frankly should not have to seek professional help.

As I said, my caller had a commercial reason for incorporating which was good to know. He had asked for help. However, many people spurn professional advice and just go ahead. A few months ago I came across an instance where two ladies had gone into business. They had formed a company but were struggling to get their business concept off the ground. I could understand why they wanted limited liability. However they had given personal guarantees in respect of borrowings so were not protected from their largest creditors. I felt that with early substantial losses and both having decent full time jobs as well, they could have done with having their losses set off against their personal income, so surely should have formed a partnership, though not necessarily a limited liability partnership where losses may be harder to relieve. They were right to consider commercial reasons first but those commercial reasons should include protecting cash flow through proper management of tax losses

There are lots of people who need help but will not pay to save tax, which will far outweigh the professional fees. Even this year's Finance Act (2009) and the loss carry-back provisions are a minefield, with incorrect loss claims likely to be quite costly for someone who does not understand the pitfalls. There are other tax reasons not to incorporate quite apart from the issue of early trading losses. If the business owner wants maximum tax relief on an expensive car, again he or she should consider operating as a sole trader or through a partnership. In the end, it is essential and cheaper to obtain professional tax advice. Of course I would say that, but then I am in a position to know.

One thing I had drummed into me on sales courses is that prospects don't know what they don't know. In tax or anything else, it is our job to help them, and it's for their own good, not to line our pockets.

© Jon Stow 2009

Tax disenfranchisement

2009-10-31T10:18:00.001-07:00

It was reported this last week that 1.5 million UK pensioners are paying too much tax which is because too much is being deducted from their occupational and private pensions and from any employment earnings they have. Once upon a time of course, most pensioners with taxable income of any sort had to complete tax returns. Since the introduction of Self Assessment in 1996-97 and increased automation and exchange of information as well as significant job cuts in what has become HM Revenue & Customs, far fewer people have to complete tax returns. In itself this is sensible, because why should people have to worry about form filling if it is not necessary, and can be dispensed with? However, if we have a more “automatic” system, it should work and be seen to work. This means that if age allowances are due then they should be allocated, and it should be easier for the public to talk to the Tax Office about their issues.

I believe information should be supplied to every household in the land explaining the system of personal allowances and how direct taxation works at its most basic level, but in reality, the only time most of us get any proper information about the workings of our liabilities to tax is if we actually have to complete tax returns ourselves. For the rest who just have periodical Notices of Coding, HMRC is simply explaining why they are doing what they are doing, and leaving out information which they perceive as irrelevant but which may not be.

Of course, the public may talk to someone at an HMRC call centre if they think they have problems or are being taxed incorrectly, but they need to know they have a problem first. Some no doubt complain about high taxes without knowing that they are being overcharged. This of course takes me back to the point a made a few months ago about “progress” disenfranchising the non-technical population.

© Jon Stow 2009

BBC: 1.5m pensioners 'overpaying tax'

Even cleverer HMRC phishing scam

2009-10-12T04:44:00.000-07:00

There is a new phishing scam going round in the form of an email that purports to come from HM Revenue & Customs. This is just to warn you not to click on the link in any such email you receive. HM Revenue & Customs will never email a taxpayer concerning a tax refund or any other matter.

Part of the text of the current "phishing" scam email is as follows:

"Taxpayer ID: (a "reference")
Tax Type: INCOME TAX
Issue: Unreported/Underreported Income (Fraud Application)

Please review your tax statement on HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) website (click on the link below):

review tax statement for taxpayer id: (a long code)

HM Revenue and Customs"

I received such an email this morning into my spam folder.

There are similar emails purporting to be from the IRS to US taxpayers. The IRS would never send an email of this type either.

More information here

Be careful out there.

HMRC's stealth taxation through technology

2009-10-10T09:18:00.000-07:00

The Revenue is introducing a new requirement to force agents to submit company accounts on-line in XBRL format from April 2011. Let me quote from their website:

“Company Tax Returns and XBRL

XBRL stands for Extensible Business Reporting Language, which is an international standard designed for business financial reporting.
At the moment accounts and other attachments to online CT600 returns can be sent in PDF format. From April 2011 (and for all CT600 returns due after 31 March 2011) we expect that all CT600 returns will have to be sent online, and will have to include attachments using the XBRL format.
You don't have to wait till 2011 to change to XBRL, and we recommend you consider doing so before it becomes mandatory. Later in 2009-10 HMRC intends to introduce a CT filing product which uses XBRL (this will be aimed at smaller, unrepresented companies), and to introduce a new main CT Online service. Other software developers have introduced or are working on products which use XBRL.”

I find this very news disappointing, especially with the short time-scale. I assume that behind this is an intention to make company accounts more accessible to staff within HM Revenue & Customs, and will help their cost-cutting. The justification is the report by Lord Carter on HMRC on-line services amongst other things. Lord Carter had to revise his proposals on individual taxpayers' Self Assessment deadlines following a furore back in 2006 that they were impractical. It would be useful if we could have just a little more time to make the change.

Self Assessment itself was introduced as a cost-cutting exercise, though it increased the cost burden of compliance for taxpayers.

The effect of the new requirement for XBRL format is to transfer further costs to taxpayers. The increase in software costs for tax agents will either have to be passed on to clients or the agents will have to bear them. No doubt the specialist tax software providers will have their developers working furiously to be ready for 2011 and they will need to charge the end user. Unfortunately the change will amount to a stealth tax even on those businesses which are not in profit. I believe in value billing, but increased overheads in software costs do not provide value for the agent or the end-user business. It is very difficult to provide the best value to clients whilst having to dance to the Treasury's discordant tune.

© Jon Stow 2009

Have you submitted your Tax Return yet?
On our bikes
Exemplary Consulting for Business Support
Follow me on Twitter

More in sorrow than in anger - Jobcentre bully

2009-10-01T01:31:00.000-07:00

I heard something this week in the course of business that really upset me, and it has spared you, until I get around to it, a commentary on what activity might constitute trading and what might not.

I saw one of my clients this week to collect her books and those of her husband as they are both self-employed. Mrs. Y works with children. Times have been hard and generally people do not want to pay for luxuries and extras even for their children; hence Mr & Mrs Y as I shall call them have both been struggling and Mr Y had been unable to find any new assignments for a period. Fortunately his attributes have now landed him a decent engagement.

During the period of famine in the household my clients went to the Jobcentre Plus in the locality to apply for Jobseekers Allowance for Mr Y and for Housing Benefit since they have a mortgage to pay in addition to Council Tax etc. Mrs Y was required to produce her last accounts, prepared by my firm. The Jobcentre person looked down the profit and loss, or I should say, income and a lot of expenditure. She said “Of course I have to take these with a pinch of salt. Accountants produce figures to most suit the client. I cannot take into account some of these expenses” and she struck out the rent Mrs Y pays for her workspace used once a week in which to teach her pupils. This is the biggest expense, of course. Mrs Y told me she was shocked. Of course she was. When she related the story, I said “Why ever didn't you call me to ask me to speak to this person?” Mrs Y said that she felt the whole experience of dealing with the Jobcentre person was so humiliating that she did not want to prolong it by taking the matter up. She was clearly even now, months after this interview, quite shaken up.

Well, as I said, I am upset. Firstly, my client has been treated very badly by an intimidating and ignorant public servant. I know (because after a time in our business you get a nose for “dodginess” in people) that Mr & Mrs Y are completely honest, straight and decent people who do not deserve this treatment. Then again, I feel insulted on behalf of all tax advisers and accountants. The accounts were true and fair and every item was accounted for, backed by advices and receipts including obviously the rent arbitrarily “disallowed” by the aggressive woman in the Jobcentre, and of course all reconciled to my client's bank statements, paying in books and cheque stubs. I hardly need to spell it out except that I still cannot get over the attitude of the person.

In the end, despite my righteous anger at the aspersions cast at me, the worst aspect is that my clients have been deprived of benefit that is properly due to them as good taxpayers all these years. This sort of thing may be going on up and down the country for all I know. I wish my clients would make a complaint and I would back them all the way, but they would rather stay away from nasty officialdom, and I cannot say I blame them.

© Jon Stow 2009

Unfair and unreasonable!

2009-09-10T04:29:00.000-07:00

With effect from April 2010 HM Revenue & Customs are taking away a long established concession or non-statutory arrangement known as “Equitable Liability”. Not a lot of people know about its existence, even professional advisers, perhaps because it does not come up too often.

What is Equitable Liability? Well, it is a practice which helped out a group of people you may not feel too sorry for; those who did not submit their Tax Returns for quite a number of years. When Tax Returns have not been submitted, HMRC is entitled under statute to estimate the tax which might have been payable by the dilatory taxpayers and make a “determination” following which they would demand payment of the estimated amount. The person who received the demand might indeed have paid it, but if Returns were then put in within about five years later than they should have been, HMRC would adjust the tax to the actual amount due. A refund could then arise.

All well and good you might say, and it serves anyone right for not submitting their tax returns on time. However there may be many reasons why a person might not have submitted a Return for a long time, including all sorts of personal difficulties. Some people might be bankrupted not for the tax they would have owed, but for an excessive amount they would not have owed if they had complied with the rules.

Equitable Liability is an arrangement under which HMRC agrees not to collect the excess tax owed over and above what should have been due if the Returns had been submitted on time. The tax remains legally due because after the time limit has expired the amount is set in stone, but it is simply not collected subject to HMRC's discretion under the practice.

This discretionary practice of allowing taxpayers who have returned to the fold (and their tax affairs must have been brought up to date) to adjust their tax payments to the amounts which would have been due is being withdrawn. HMRC says that the reasons are that it no longer has Crown Preference, which made them ahead of other creditors, and there was a tax case in the House of Lords from which they infer they no longer have the discretionary power.

It seems to me that legislation could provide such a power, rather than HMRC withdrawing the concession at the same time as reducing the window for tax liabilities to be adjusted from five years to three as will happen at the same time in April 2010.

There is a petition to the Government asking the Treasury to change its mind. This was started by Keith Gordon, the well-known tax barrister. The petition is here if you think it unfair that someone could be many times overcharged for being late with his or her tax returns. Remember interest has to be paid anyway on late paid tax due, and someone who has not submitted Returns for some years will probably have clocked up £200 per year in statutory penalties which will not be removed.

I have a current case of a new client whose tax affairs I have brought up to date, and on her behalf I am still in time to make the case for Equitable Liability and help her to gain a moratorium on tax determined for back years. The next client I take on whose circumstances are similar may not have the same option, though I can make no promises in the current case given that this is a discretionary matter.

“Equitable” is defined in my dictionary as “fair and reasonable”. I think the current proposal is unfair and unreasonable.

© Jon Stow 2009

Have you submitted your Tax Return yet?
On our bikes
Exemplary Consulting for Business Support
Follow me on Twitter

Amateur tax avoidance

2009-09-10T01:12:00.000-07:00

I am not sure how people dream up ideas as to how they can avoid tax and then just do what they think is necessary without talking to a professional adviser. Very often their “cunning plans” can be very costly indeed.

I have dealt with a client who arranged for his father to give away his parents' house to him to avoid inheritance tax. Firstly, it did not work from the IHT point of view because his parents and then his mother after his father's death continued to live in the property. After his mother died he sold the property and then someone told him he might have a capital gains problem. He came to me then. Without going into detail, I managed to get him past the capital gains issue (and he easily could have ended up paying capital gains tax if he had not ultimately sought professional advice) but the irony was that both his parents' estates were below the IHT threshold so there never was any inheritance tax to avoid anyway.

I also come across people who think they can avoid capital gains tax by selling their assets pregnant with gain(as we tax people like to say) whilst they are spending a year or so overseas. This is actually a difficult thing to do, and even if possible with careful planning, our amateur tax avoiders do not realise that whatever overseas country they will be spending their time in may well seek to tax the capital gain. At the very least they could end up incurring a lot of professional fees in the overseas jurisdiction.

Yes, it is possible to avoid UK capital gains tax if abroad, but usually only if you are gone for quite a few years. It does not work any more going to Belgium for a year and getting fat on cream cakes and Belgian chocolate in their lovely cafes (Belgians must have an immunity to such temptations) just to avoid CGT, and lovely as New Zealand is, you would really have to be there long enough to go native.

If you think you have a bright idea to avoid paying tax, maybe based on something you heard at the yacht club or whilst going home on the bus, please talk to a professional tax adviser who will put you straight on what you can or can't do, and who will either give you a sensible proposal or let you down gently. A modest fee paid can save you an awful lot of heartache and perhaps a lot of money too.

© Jon Stow 2009

Have you submitted your Tax Return yet?
On our bikes
Exemplary Consulting for Business Support
Follow me on Twitter

HMRC attacks construction industry workers

2009-08-28T03:44:00.000-07:00

Towards the end of July HM Revenue & Customs published one of their famous consultation documents. I say “famous” because we have had quite a number of them in the past couple of years, and for the most part HMRC takes little or no notice of the opinions of tax professionals and other interested parties before doing for the most part what they always intended to do. The exception to all this was the major changes in the taxation treatment of trusts from April 2008, where HMRC should have had a consultation, but chose not to, blind-siding everyone with an attack on trust principles going back centuries.

It was clear that HMRC, or at least the Whitehall Mandarins, understood trusts not at all, thinking of them only in the context of tax avoidance. Trusts are generally just a way of preserving property for the benefit (usually) of others including children and grandchildren, and the idea goes back to the time of the Crusades. Anyway, I digress, but the point is that HMRC seems obsessed with their belief that there are bunches of scoundrels out there who should be paying more tax. This may of course be driven by a false sense of fairness, though there is also the likelihood that they want to get every penny they can because of Government spending and borrowing, and the general fall in tax revenues as a result of the recession. Of course there are dishonest people, but why use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, causing collateral damage to decent people?

So to the attack on the construction industry and in particular on subcontractors. Subbies, as they are called, are skilled workers and labourers engaged by main contractors or other subcontractors who work on building sites on the whole, and the term includes everyone who works on a building job from the people who clear the site, dig foundations, fit the plumbing and electrical circuits, through to the people who clean up new builds and attack the remaining dust with a vacuum cleaner.

HMRC thinks that many of these people should be treated as employees. The motive is because higher National Insurance Contributions are recovered from an employee and his or her employer than is levied on a self-employed person, who incidentally gets far fewer benefits from his limited contributions and no benefit whatsoever from the 8% rate of so-called Class 4 NIC which is effectively a tax on income and nothing else. The other motive for this attack must be that self-employed people can claim more in the way of expense deductions including usually travel and other sums expended that have to be “necessary” -in addition to being incurred wholly and exclusively- to gain a deduction for an employee. That word has led to a lot of argument in the Courts over many years.

There is ample case law to distinguish between an employee and a self-employed person going back many years. I have no problem with HMRC's general interpretations on this web page. One can see that to be an employee, an employer must have a degree of control over the worker and a degree of responsibility too. The hours worked will be decided by the employer, as will permission to take time off.

I can see a sort of case that some unskilled labourers might be casual employees if they provide nothing except their physical presence and hard graft; some of them. However, the idea that my plumber, brickie, electrician and carpenter clients are not self-employed seems to me absurd. The HMRC consultation paper, called 'False self-employment in construction: taxation of workers' says, at least to my mind, some quite absurd things:

“In order for the employment income deeming rule not to apply, the worker will need to meet one of the following criteria:

provision of plant and equipment – the worker provides the plant and equipment required for the job they have been engaged to carry out, disregarding tools of the trade which it is traditional for a worker in the industry to provide for themselves to do the job
provision of all materials – the worker provides all materials required to complete a job or
provision of other workers – the worker provides other workers to carry out operations under the contract and is responsible for paying them.”

With the greatest respect to HMRC, this is tripe. It is tripe written by an employee in an office in HMRC towers who receives a salary every month, more or less knows that he or she will still have a job next year, the year after and the year after that, and a fat pension when the time comes.

Firstly, to deal with the HMRC bullet points, most brickies, well all brickies, provide the tools of their trade. As I have seen suggested, should each brickie also bring his /her own cement mixer every time in order to fulfill the “plant and equipment” criterion? Should the brickie really bring his own materials to mix the mortar? Of course the brickie may bring a mate to work if the contractor is shorthanded, and may even send someone instead, but that is not common. However not supplying other workers does not make the brickie an employee. After all (please note HMRC tripe-writer) a brickie may have no work next week or the week after, and certainly no certainty of work next year. It is worse than normal because there is a recession. Some of my subbies' telephone bills are high this time round because they are telephoning main contractors, trying to find assignments and projects to work on. One of my plumbers has been out of work for some months recently. Also, some projects have stopped half way through through lack of finance. There is no certainty of work, and just imagine the impact on the big construction companies if they suddenly found they had loads of employees. The cost would see them out of business and the Government's housing targets an even more distant pipe dream.

So let us have some common sense. It is evident that most construction workers are not employees. They can choose their own time off, but they cannot have certainty as to when and where their skills will be engaged. Has not HMRC not got something better to do than overturn established principles of case law and potentially land another crippling blow on an already sick construction industry? Answers on a postcard to HMRC by 12th October 2009.

© Jon Stow 2009

HMRC and customer service

2009-08-16T09:52:00.000-07:00

I wrote recently about Government and in particular HMRC disenfranchising the non-technical population. It is a sad situation, and it means that some perfectly intelligent people and in particular those of an older age group, or perhaps those who work with their hands have to employ people like me to do tasks with which they could have coped if dealing in paper.

Because there is almost no one in HMRC with whom the ordinary population can speak who actually knows anything about tax, taxpayers just have to grub along or pay someone else. It gets worse as demonstrated by a visit I made to an older couple this week. Their problem was that another elderly relative had died and they had been left to administer the estate. They had been sent a Form R27 which, for the uninitiated, is a Return of income for the previous 6th April up to the date of death of the deceased, and which is completed by the Executors or Administrators of an Estate. The couple had filled in the form but missed out completing two sections. An Assistant Officer at HMRC had sent it back with the two sections marked with red crosses and asked the worthy couple to complete the details required. Of course they dud not have a clue which is why they had telephoned me.

Now in the good old days these Executors could have taken their papers and the form to the Tax Office and had help completing the form on the spot. Nowadays, even if they could find the person who penned the red crosses, he probably would not have had a clue either, which is why after a couple of months he returned the form with such an unhelpful letter.

I reckoned the repayment due to the estate was less than £100, but the couple had not collected all the information needed to fill in the R27. I dictated letters to the organisations concerned, which the wife took down in shorthand, and said that when they had received replies they would be able to complete the form and send it off. If they were still unsure they should call me.

I came away feeling unable to bill for my 45 minutes plus the short drive. I had done the tedious Money Laundering check because that is obligatory but by the time I had done an engagement letter, written the letters myself and dealt with HMRC I would have done far more work and costs would have far exceeded the refund due to the very small estate. Effectively I had to treat it as charity work.

HMRC calls taxpayers customers, but customer service has become an alien concept. When I was a young tax junior you could track down anyone in the Revenue and get things sorted out over the telephone, which is no longer possible with the call centres.

Why should I have to do for nothing something HMRC cannot be bothered to do because it has changed itself into an even less friendly organisation than BT or my bank? Yes, those who cannot afford to pay for representation can go to TaxAid, but why should they have to, and though I am happy to help out, I think we tax advisers and agents are taken for granted and not afforded proper respect by HMRC. However, if they treat their customers like that, what do I expect?

© Jon Stow 2009

Stirring the pot

2009-08-01T10:32:00.000-07:00

I watched with interest the interview on the Accountancy Age website with Dave Hartnett, Permanent Secretary for Tax about the New Disclosure Opportunity (NDO). To quote HMRC,

“the NDO will allow people with unpaid taxes linked to offshore accounts or assets to settle their tax liabilities at a favourable penalty rate. It will run from the 1st Sept 2009 until 12 March 2010.

If you have unpaid tax linked to an offshore account or asset to declare, to benefit from the terms of NDO you will need to notify us AND disclose (tell us the details, calculate the amount due and make a full payment) within a set time limit.”

There will be a specific lowered rate of penalty for those coming forward under the scheme. It is not an amnesty in that tax, interest and penalties will have to be paid; it is simply that the penalty will be fixed at 10% unless people had a letter from HM Revenue & Customs under the original Disclosure Opportunity and passed it up, in which case the penalty will be 20%.

The original opportunity for those with undeclared and taxable offshore income to come forward was in 2007. This followed legal action through which British banks holding their customers' money offshore were effectively obliged to disclose details of the relevant accounts as they have done for many years in respect of UK based accounts. HMRC wrote to the bank customers they thought might have undeclared accounts. This time round, HMRC will write to many more people since they have information from many more banks.

In the interview, Mr. Hartnett admitted that he had no idea of the number of people would come forward or the amount of money which would be recovered. This was an honest reply. We only gleaned that he thought it would be more than under the previous scheme. Pressed on the criticism that the earlier campaign was under-publicised he said that around £1M would probably be spent in advertising and initiatives. I wish HMRC luck with this trawl and will have no sympathy with those continue to evade tax. I will be happy to assist anyone who wishes to come clean.

The NDO is not the only trawl in which HMRC is currently engaged. Many possibly non-tax payers or marginal taxpayers will have received letters in the last couple of weeks asking whether they should still be receiving their bank interest without deduction of tax.

Those recipients I know about actually receive their interest net of tax (and pretty paltry interest it is at current rates), but although some have been happy just to refer the printed note to me, one very elderly lady became convinced HMRC were after her and would take away her pension. That second reaction was extreme, but I cannot help thinking that the distress caused be this second mailshot to people on low incomes will far outweigh the concern of the generally much wealthier recipients of the NDO letter. I am not sure anyone in HMRC will have thought about that and I am sceptical that any significant tax will be raised by this mailshot to the poor and elderly.

© Jon Stow 2009

Is "progress" disenfranchising the non-technical population?

2009-07-18T08:13:00.000-07:00

A couple of incidents recently highlighted have highlighted how easily “progress” can isolate people and prevent them from getting help, and those people are often the neediest.

As a tax professional I am used to the bureaucracy of HM Revenue & Customs, though even for me it can be extremely frustrating. I received a form from HMRC concerning a pensions coding (Form P161 for the initiated). It was addressed to my firm, but did not have the taxpayer-client’s name on it, only the National Insurance number. I could not trace the number in my tax software and telephoned HMRC to find out whose form it was. However, having given the number to the call centre person, she told me I could not discuss the client unless I knew his / her name, but that was what I was calling to ask. She recommended that I sent the form back with an explanation and waited for them to respond by post. However, I knew that the Tax Office in question was months behind with paper correspondence, but even so, there was nothing to be done but to ring off.

Such an intransigent attitude and inability to take the initiative and work around to solve the problem quickly would deter any individual taxpayer trying to understand a confusing form. I can well imagine it would be intimidating. In the good old days…..etc.

The second incident started when one of my very elderly clients telephoned to say she had received a form she had to fill in to get the refund I had recently applied for on her behalf for 2008-09. I was puzzled, but asked her to send me the form to look at. It turned out that the form was actually for next year’s claim – a Form R40 for 2009-10 for the initiated. These elderly people, often on very low incomes and who are on low fees – my few “charity cases”- have no idea how to obtain even the most basis information or understand their entitlements. Just dishing out a form, which would have been best sent to me as agent anyway, is no form of proper communication. I have tried hard to get as much of these people’s investment income paid without deduction of tax so they do not have to get me to reclaim tax, but to no avail. Life would also be simpler if HMRC were to have the option to deduct PAYE from the State Pension, as they have in respect of most pension annuities these days, because fewer elderly people would need to complete tax returns and claims. The only thing is that they like their hands held over all sorts of financial matters even if it is helping them to find a good IFA, so to a degree I am a sort of financial social worker and some would rather pay me a little something so that I am available at the end of a telephone. I would do some stuff for free for a few if I thought I would be insured for it.

Still, I am in business in order to make a living. I do charge realistic and suitable fees to a majority of clients for the excellent service they get. The good news is that having searched my archived records on a whim I found the former client to whom the pension coding form related. I telephoned to ask if he wanted me to send it on and it turns out he would like me to act for him again due to a change of circumstances. All in all that was good news, but I just wish that the workings of government bureaucracy were simpler for the more senior citizens and for those who are not comfortable sitting at a keyboard and monitor.

© Jon Stow 2009

A week of curiosities and a valuable reminder

2009-07-10T10:34:00.000-07:00

It has been a strange week. On Monday I went to see a client to collect his tax papers, only to find that they were in a locked cabinet to which only his wife had the key, and she was out. It was a short meeting as a result, and I did wonder why my client had not telephoned to save me the journey.

Two less eventful days ensued, and I went to my monthly local meeting of tax practitioners on Thursday. “Tell me, everyone” I said, “what do you guys do in the way of marketing?” Six faces looked back at me blankly. “Marketing? We don’t do marketing. We don’t need to because we always have enough to do.”

I was amazed, and actually even felt a little foolish for a moment. After all, I spend quite a lot of time marketing. I have one local targeted ad, and apart from that I work on my website, my blogs, the social networking sites, Twitter and face-to-face networking. All this results in work coming in, which compensates for the occasional client of mine who finds it necessary to dispense with my services. There is always some attrition. When people leave me it never seems to be because they have gone off my firm or its service. People move and like someone local to look after their tax affairs, or they sell up everything and move abroad.

How do my colleagues not have net losses of clients? It can only be because they are longer established than me (a mere seven years) and get plenty of referrals without looking for work, or they are good at client stickiness and find it easy to keep their revenue from each increasing year on year. I admire that, and am even envious though I worry about their complacency. Apparently any sort of networking is alien to their natures. I enjoy it and it gets me out, gives me a chance to feel useful in connecting people, gets me work and avoids the loneliness of some small business owners.

I went back to the office to puzzle over an email from a client’s wife. “I haven’t time to send you my husband’s papers so that you can do his tax return as we are going on holiday for the whole of August and we need his refund by September”. Now, hang on, she lives a long way from my office and I cannot easily take the ferry to do my customary house visit, but we have broadband and live in an electronic age; hence the email. Said lady then goes on to ask me how to fill in the Return by requesting a technical calculation for last year. I answered her question of course, and wish her the best of British with the Foreign and Non-resident pages which are hardly logical even to us professionals (we always seem to have to do work-arounds to get them to make sense). I have not had a response to my somewhat injured one, but am not holding my breath. Needless to say I advised her that if she sent me the information she could have emailed copies of the Return and accounts for approval easily by the end of July. It would be inconvenient but I will always try to be flexible to meet my clients’ needs. I am not holding my breath, though.

Late on Thursday, I saw another new client for the first time. It turned out his previous adviser had died, and no one seemed to be running the practice now. I think the accountant was unqualified but nevertheless may have been very good at what he did. The client had obviously found his service good. In these tragic circumstances it is a reminder that we should always allow for someone to take over the reins of our business if we become sick or die suddenly as this guy did as a result of an accident. We owe it to our clients and also to our families as it is better to have a saleable business as a going concern than a business which is as dead as the owner.

If not lessons, I feel I have had some useful reminders. I must check that my nominated successor is still happy to run my practice in the event of my incapacity as I have directed. I will call her to check.

Out with the old…

2009-07-08T14:02:00.000-07:00

Like most other people in my business, nearly all things in my office are done online. The tax returns have to be submitted by FBI (file by internet); we can read the Revenue manuals online, download their booklets, read the professional magazines and have website communities of fellow professionals. In other words, we have access to every possible resource of information without resorting to the printed word. Then, if we need something printed, then we print it ourselves,

Many readers of this piece will recognise this; some will be fellow tax professionals and others will have found their business lives completely changed or based from the start on information technology.

This leaves me with a problem though. I have sets of the bibles of UK direct tax, Simon’s Taxes, and of the more recent indirect tax regime, De Voil. They constitute a very large number of loose leaf volumes of many pages in plastic covers and they have not been updated for six or seven years. Actually I had them as hand-me-downs when I started out on my own. They were surplus to requirements from an office that was closing. I could not have afforded to pay for the updates, and although some case law commentaries might still be relevant, the legislation has changed so much especially with the on-the-hoof goal-post moving of recent times. I hope that is not a surfeit of metaphors.

The books have to go. I need the space and have to think what to do. Are they of any interest to anyone? Shall I take them down the tip, take the pages out of the covers and recycle the component parts. Can I sell them on EBay – six years out of date? I guess the tip is odds-on favourite. Any offers – free to a good home?

Credit where credit’s due - HMRC v Annabel's

2009-06-12T06:41:00.000-07:00

HM Revenue & Customs has claimed that it has struck a blow for lower-paid workers in the form of restaurant and nightclub staff. As many of you will know, there is a common system in restaurants where tips are collected whether through cash or as additions to credit card billing and allocated to a member of staff, the troncmaster, who is responsible for delivering shares of these gratuities to his or her colleagues. Normally the person who has the distribution responsibility deducts PAYE as appropriate which is dealt with separately from the normal wages. Yes, some cash tips go straight into pockets, but that’s another story.

Probably in common with many establishments, it turned out that Annabel’s, the well-known London nightclub, was paying its workers less than the National Minimum Wage (NMW) on the grounds that when seen in conjunction with the tips paid by the troncmaster the total earnings exceeded the NMW.

HMRC took a dim view of this and issued enforcement notices against which the employers appealed, claiming that the monies received in total by the employees satisfied the minimum amount specified under the NMW regulations. The Employment Tribunal and subsequently the Court of Appeal agreed with HMRC that the minimum wage had not been paid by the employers and they were in breach of the rules, and thus restaurant and nightclub workers must be paid the NMW before taking into account tips.

This is indeed a landmark decision which will benefit many thousands of workers who will now get at least the National Minimum Wage plus tips, even if it means that restaurant bills will be going up to cover the shortfall in monies taken. HMRC deserves credit for clamping down.

Should we feel sorry for the Annabel’s employees who have been so exploited in the past? Probably not, because at such a high class establishment the punters tip very generously and word is most Annabel’s staff are higher rate taxpayers already.

Have you submitted your Tax Return yet?
On our bikes
Exemplary Consulting for Business Support
Follow me on Twitter

New tax amnesty and old habits

2009-06-09T08:38:00.000-07:00

We are starting to hear a little more about the new tax amnesty in the UK, called by HM Revenue & Customs the “New Disclosure Opportunity (NDO),” which follows on from the 2007 amnesty. Now we know that since the original amnesty, which followed on from HMRC’s victory in the Courts over the UK banks defending unsuccessfully their Channel Island branch customers, HMRC has come by a lot more information. Indeed I can infer from what I have heard on the grapevine that the acquisition of information concerning the Lichtenstein accounts has borne fruit, and will continue to do so. Therefore I think that the NDO is aimed at this particular tranche of (non) taxpayers and may be the reason for the bullish £2Bn tax take punted in the Daily Telegraph report.

I guess my advice to the miscreants would be to grab the 10% fixed penalty (plus interest on late-paid tax) while they can; of course my advice is always to come clean because at least in theory, the more tax the fraudulent evaders have to pay, the less the tax burden for the rest of us (I wish). To my mind, failure to pay thousands or millions in tax which is properly due to the Exchequer is little different from robbing a bank or stealing millions in gold bullion.

There are those who have been caught already between amnesties, which is bad luck or just desserts for not having come forward the first time. There really will be no excuse for lying low in the next amnesty, and to be honest (me, not them) they would be well advised to talk to their tax advisers, accountants or lawyers now in readiness to make complete disclosures. If they do not, or if the disclosures are incomplete then it may well mean jail time (being British and pedantic I would like to say “gaol time”). Still, it might be hard to persuade die-hard evaders to put their hands up.

I am not taking the Revenue’s side so much as the side of truth and honesty. That said, if anyone wants to speak to me with a view to their coming clean on their undeclared income and gains, I will be pleased to represent them in dealing with HMRC as long as I am satisfied they wish to make a full disclosure. Naturally I offer a very discreet and totally confidential service.

Doing the decent thing

2009-05-27T10:33:00.000-07:00

Sometimes in my line of work we have to lift our heads from what we are doing and take a step back. Are we really doing the right thing? Today I was asked to quote for dealing with the accounts and tax return of what purported to be a business. The owner was concerned at the level of fee he was paying his present accountant for the preparation of the annual accounts and tax returns.

Having had a look at the work involved, I quoted a fee that was apparently much the same as the amount charged by the present adviser. In a sense I was pleased that my nose for what was fair was in line with the market. My USP is that I give more for the money in terms of value, because not only do I carry out the compliance at a fair price, but I am always available to clients on the telephone, giving proactive advice and help my clients be more efficient.

In this case I was concerned that I was being asked to quote for a low turnover business which consistently makes losses and has done for years. There was no other income available against which to set off the losses, for reasons I will not go into. HMRC, if they would ever think about it, would say that this was not a true business but a hobby, and that the losses should not be tax deductible elsewhere.

I said to my prospect that I thought the “business” really was a hobby, and that it would save a great deal in accountancy and tax compliance costs if the present agents were to ask HMRC to agree that the activity was a loss-making hobby and that tax returns and accounts would not be required in the future. Of course I gave away the chance to bid for the work, and probably the present incumbent will lose the business, but I think they should have given it up anyway rather than churning through a pointless process for a regular annual income. I am not saying they were unethical; just not thinking about what they were doing. What do you think?

Have you submitted your Tax Return yet?
On our bikes
Exemplary Consulting for Business Support
Follow me on Twitter

Has common courtesy had its day?

2009-05-20T14:10:00.000-07:00

I try not to make this a whingeing blog. For that reason, if I complain about our dear friends at HM Revenue & Customs, it is the system, bureaucracy and stilted thinking that annoys me, not the staff who have to carry out the wishes of their masters. I cannot recall in recent years ever having had a difficult conversation with a Revenue employee, other than in the rare context that the person was not prepared to strike the best deal I had hoped for concerning a client under enquiry. Certainly there have never been angry exchanges.

Having put the record straight about the dear Revenue, I have to say that most of the time I have good relations with all my clients, my subcontractors and my suppliers (well, except the bank which is still vicious with its charges; however, since we never speak, I am not sure it constitutes a relationship). With regard to clients, if I feel uncomfortable with our communications I try to get to the bottom of it, and if we are still not getting on, I ask them to use someone else. That has been a very rare situation in the seven year life of my business, partly because one develops a feeling about a prospect before signing him or her up, and sometimes it is better just to suggest they go elsewhere.

Well, this past month two incidents have got me going. The first involves a quite major (for me) client whom I gained through a referral. The company needed some remedial tax work in order to claim some extra tax back from HMRC. I re-did two pretty complex Corporation Tax Returns which had originally been submitted by a Big Four firm. I have found out that after the FD needed help with an accounting matter (which I did know about) and asked a local firm to look at it, they have now done all the tax work for this year for my client without even asking for professional clearance. I am pretty upset, and whilst I do not know whether the firm in question just did not understand that my firm was the registered agent in succession to the Big Four firm, whether they just went for it, or the client is to blame, one way or another between them they have contrived to keep me out of the loop and de facto I have lost the job. I had tried to keep up by repeatedly asking the client about progress towards providing the information I needed, but I have been the furthest from anyone's mind. I should have been told that my services were being summarily dispensed with. The now ex-client is to his credit very apologetic and evidently embarrassed, and is a nice guy, but I am still left high and dry.

A month or so back, I had a response to my one and only paper ad which appears monthly, and went to see the prospect, who told me that he felt remote from his current adviser who never spoke to him. We had a good meeting, he gave me copies of his last Tax Return and accounts to take away, and signed an authority for me to act on his behalf in dealing with HMRC. I asked him to let his current accountant / adviser know of his decision before I wrote to that firm for professional clearance. I heard nothing more for a number of weeks, but on telephoning today I am told that not only was he staying with the current firm, but they had already done his latest accounts and Tax Return. He was going to tell me, but hadn't got round to it. He hoped I didn't mind.

Now, I do accept that my firm is not the only one out there, but the elements that go with my work for clients include great service, regular communication (I do not ever charge for telephone calls and am always happy to speak to a client) and where possible at least one face-to-face meeting a year. I charge nothing extra for this because I think clients should always have the Waitrose quality rather than cheap and cheerful, or worse, cheap and surly.

I always hope and dare to expect that clients will treat me as I treat them, and if they have a confession to make that they are “seeing someone else”, I will get it early rather than stumbling upon them in fond embrace. Is that too much to ask?

Have you submitted your Tax Return yet?
On our bikes
Exemplary Consulting for Business Support
Follow me on Twitter

Taxpayers as customers and the service they receive

2009-05-18T10:18:00.000-07:00

I, in common with most other taxpayers, resent being called a customer of HM Revenue & Customs, when there really is no choice of supplier. We are captives of the system and we cannot take our business elsewhere. This is an old saw, but if we are customers, we have to ask what we are getting in terms of service; value for what we pay is another matter, and one of a political nature.

HMRC, or at least the Inland Revenue as they were called, did once upon a time provide a service to individual taxpayers, prior to Self Assessment. Of course many people feared the tax man as they thought, even though going back a long time the majority of staff were women as now. However, with minor errors in Tax Returns or even quite major but obviously unintentional incorrect completion of Returns, one could expect a letter suggesting a correct interpretation, or very often a telephone call from the Tax Office along the lines of “Have you forgotten your bank interest? Drop us a line with the figures and we will make an adjustment.”

Now it is true to say that there was a lot wrong with the old system. There was a tradition of issuing estimated assessments every year against which the taxpayer or the adviser would appeal as a matter of routine, but this was largely a question of regulating the flow of tax payments as routinely one would offer a payment on account. It was a daft system latterly (that is prior to 1996-97) but it was a system that was many years out of date. The estimated assessment routine became more fashionable in the latter stages before Self Assessment as the Revenue realised that they had to get money in. When I started in tax, one rarely saw an assessment issued unless a Tax Return had been put in, and there was little incentive for the more laissez faire taxpayers to do so. Why put in a tax return and have to pay tax, cutting into one's holiday money for St. Trop?

So, something had to be done, and though there had been tightening up of interest charges for late payment of tax, there really needed to be a system of making people submit tax returns and fining them if they didn't, as other jurisdictions already did. I think the Revenue had looked at America's Internal Revenue Service and thought they were along the right lines.

Anyway, the major change was to make people responsible for calculating their own tax liabilities, and with the wholesale introduction of a new computer system they had an automatic checking facility and automated fines and levies of interest charges. The major triumph at the time was to start massive cost cutting (this is one thing we cannot blame the current Government for) by getting rid of more qualified staff who actually knew about tax in favour of computers and call centre staff. Not all of this happened at the same time; there has been and will continue to be for a while yet an ongoing process of closing tax offices in favour of call centres and reducing the numbers of personnel who actually understand tax issues.

As the onus is now on the “customer” to calculate his or her tax due, this means that many who originally filled in the figures and waited for an assessment now have to either employ someone to prepare the accounts and tax return or wade into the online service and hope the figures they put in are the correct ones, especially if they are based on prepared accounts.

I earn my living to quite an extent by preparing Tax Returns and accounts for people who are not confident or know they are not competent to do it themselves. Obviously I am not complaining about this, but I think it is unfortunate that the amateur has to wade through so much information to manage without help. The Tax Return Guide is helpful with the basics, but cannot educate anyone in all the tax rules that we professionals have to know, and that is fundamentally unfair. It means that the individual taxpayers largely have to pay someone else to do what the Civil Service used to do on their behalf.

It is not as though information is very easy to find on the HMRC website. Although at a tax professionals' meeting with HMRC we were told that the website was being made much easier to use, I had to use Google to find on the HMRC website what their own search facility could not: that 5.75 million tax returns were filed online for 2008-09 by the deadline of 31st January 2009. I suspect a good proportion of those filed were by agents such as my firm. There were many glitches using HMRC's own online program, such as an inability to bring forward trading or lettings losses from a previous year. There was a work-around involving writing a note to oneself for next year. I did one Return using HMRC's own software, and had I not been a professional I would have been driven to distraction and probably given up.

The point of writing this piece is not to say that we should go back to the bad old days of estimated assessments, and the confusing-for-many previous year basis of taxing trading and untaxed sources. It is just that over ten years down the line of Self Assessment there is still so much work to be done in terms of improving the system and getting an HMRC website that is fit for purpose. Yes, the information is mostly there and the site is vast, but if a tax and internet geek like me cannot whistle up the content I need in short order, what hope is there for someone who has little tax knowledge, because that person will not even know what he or she is looking for? HMRC need to look at the news websites such as the BBC and CNN to see how the categories can be drilled down better into general headings, with menus underneath, sub menus and so on, so that amateurs (and journalists trying to check the ins and outs of MPs' expenses or whatever) can find what they are looking for.

Why has it taken so long to make the system work, and how much longer is it going to take? When is the “customer” going to benefit from doing all the work on the Government's behalf? Is not the taxpayer in reality more of a part-time contractor or employee engaged by the Treasury?

Have you submitted your Tax Return yet?
On our bikes
Exemplary Consulting for Business Support
Follow me on Twitter

Blearsy-eyed!

2009-05-13T08:36:00.000-07:00

We read here that Hazel Blears is to pay £13,332 on the sale of a second home. How is she going to do this? Presumably her accountants or tax advisers got the documentation right so that she successfully avoided a liability by making the appropriate election. The only way she can get HMRC to accept the money is by saying she made an error or worse, deliberately misled them. She will not be happy if they charge interest and penalties in addition to the CGT.

Perhaps she thinks the way to pay this voluntary tax is to just send a cheque. If HMRC cannot match the amount paid against a current liability, they will want to just send the money back. Remember that following the change in treatment of offshore income received by non-domiciled residents in UK, advisers on US tax told their UK resident clients that they should pay their tax due in the UK on US and worldwide income received in the period 6th April to 31st December 2008 before the end of December 2008 so as to have it matched with and set off against US tax due for 2008. The problem with this was that UK tax would not have become due before 31st January 2010, and HMRC's reaction was to try to repay the tax, thus defeating the object. Does Hazel know something we don't, or is this just political expediency without worrying about the consequences? I can guess, but answers on a post card please.

Update 14th May

Hazel Blears might have read my blog yesterday! I heard on BBC radio this morning that because HMRC would not be able to accept a cheque if they could not allocate it to a known liability (given that she has done nothing that she was not legally permitted to do), an official from HMRC was summoned to Westminster last night to accept the £13,332 on behalf of the Public Purse. I think it might have been better used if paid to a charity for the homeless. This is gesture politics at its worst, and really, you couldn't make it up, could you?

Have you submitted your Tax Return yet?
On our bikes
Exemplary Consulting for Business Support
Follow me on Twitter

Property flipping and knee jerk reactions

2009-05-12T03:54:00.000-07:00

I must admit that the publicity about some Members of Parliament with two or more residences changing their designated main residence to one they are about to sell has me a little concerned because of all the publicity around it, and because of the public's ire. The principal residence capital gains exemption is there for good reason, and whilst as with any rule it might be possible to exploit it to one's advantage, the main purpose of electing as to which is the main residence is actually to prevent hardship or difficulty. Often people acquire a second property through the necessity, perhaps related to a job or through inheritance, and electing as to which property is the main residence avoids unnecessary debate with HM Revenue & Customs at a later date. If a large family home were to be treated inadvertently as the second property, then upon moving, a large tax bill might prevent the purchase of a suitable replacement with similar and adequate accommodation. There has to be a rule determining which property attracts the exemption. Of course the system might be manipulated, but it is not a “loophole” as many commentators have described it.

If it is thought that MPs or ordinary taxpayers are taking serious liberties with what amounts to serial property dealing, then HMRC can look at the background and might believe that they are participating in an “adventure in the nature of a trade”, the profits of which would be liable to income tax, so it is not sensible or true to say that the tax man or tax woman does not have some powers to clamp down. With all the publicity MPs have received, those who have abused the system more seriously may certainly expect to receive letters from HMRC, who read the newspapers like anyone else. I should be concerned if there were some sort of knee-jerk clampdown emanating from Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling which might catch and be unfair to the innocent taxpayer.

Any system can be used or exploited. Readers of this piece might be interested to read about the late Frankie Howerd's ex-partner using the new Civil Partnership legislation to avoid Inheritance Tax and pass his estate tax free to their “son”. It is very ingenious, but just because rules can be exploited and manipulated by the clever or even the unscrupulous does not mean that they are wrong in principal or have to be scrapped in favour of some onerous and unfair regime which is detrimental to the greater “innocent” population.

Have you submitted your Tax Return yet?
On our bikes
Exemplary Consulting for Business Support
Follow me on Twitter

What's cooking with HMRC, MPs and networking?

2009-05-11T10:17:00.000-07:00

It was interesting to meet HMRC representatives at the Essex Branch CIOT/ATT meeting last week, and they seemed a pleasant and friendly bunch. However, of the contingent of six (v attendance of only about 25 members) a couple had come all the way from Yorkshire to Chelmsford. I could not quite see how this was cost-effective.

I took the trouble to make notes, but cannot see on re-reading them that I really learned very much. One lady was able to assure us that they were working hard to improve the website, including the deplorable search function (generally it is better to tell Google to search the HMRC site) and to tell us that we practitioners had been re-labeled as “tax agents and advisers”, an unexpected re-branding from outside. Maybe they will stop calling their hapless taxpayers “customers” but the customer word was repeated during the meeting a number of times so any move from upstairs has not reached the grass roots.

I did get some reassurance that HMRC is still interested in the small fry compliance failures such as letting income, casual earnings and bank interest (historical interest at present in more ways than one) and that they were still keen on rounding up reluctant customers. This sort of work is welcomed by me for one, and I do not see why anyone should get away with not paying tax which should be due. I am all for tax planning and saving clients tax, but am definitely not in favour of tax evasion planning!

I sent out my tax newsletter out this week. The Budget was not very nice; in fact rather depressing, though I did avoid it by being away. Still, there was no escape from the email and I am thoroughly up to speed. I have little hope that the Finance Bill will be scrutinised any more than others in recent years. Frankly, there was little help for small business and and it seems unlikely that MPs even understand anything about trusts and the proposed 50% tax rate from next April. Still, they have the exposure of their expenses to worry about. Frankly, even many of their “justifiable” expenses paid by the Exchequer would be taxable in an ordinary mortal's hands. They are like anyone else entitled to indulge in property dealing, but please, not with my money. No names, no pack drill, but some of the shenanigans I have heard of these past few days might be treated as trading liable to income tax rather than capital gains exempt due to flipping properties within the private residence rules. Some of this might be beyond HMRC now in terms of enquiry windows depending on how it was all reported to HMRC at the time.

In May we are definitely into the new season of tax returns etc.. I do like to meet face-to-face as many clients as possible at least once a year. The two I met with last week are really both some of the nicest people I know and they cheered me up. I learned a while back not to work with clients with whom I felt the relationship was difficult because there is much less pressure if we like our clients and they like us.

I am always on the look out for more nice clients and am trying a couple of new marketing strategies including some positive networking with as much giving as possible. I will let you know how I get on. Maybe barbecue networking will catch on in the long hot summer the Met Office is forecasting?

Have you submitted your Tax Return yet?
On our bikes
Exemplary Consulting for Business Support
Follow me on Twitter

Render unto Caesar...

2009-04-07T10:34:00.000-07:00

One of the problems we tax advisers have is in dealing with people, generally as prospects, who simply don't want to pay any tax at all. Somehow, the current climate of cracking down on tax avoidance (legal) as well as tax evasion (illegal) seems to have passed by these people. Usually they go further: “Why should this Government get their hands on this money? I did not vote for them. They won't spend it wisely. It is immoral how much they try to take.” Now many of us have these sentiments, but those of us who are law-abiding and understand the law (which is the overwhelming majority) grin and bear it and pay our taxes.

There are ways of tax avoidance, and these days I find myself felling uncomfortable with aggressive contrived schemes, none of which I have recommended in recent years. Of course there are tax shelters we can all use, such as various types of pensions, ISAs, National Savings Certificates and Premium Bonds, to name but a few of the obvious approved devices. Let me know and I will find you a good IFA.

Every now and again though, these people of the alternative persuasion turn up. They may be ageing hippies come into money, or ageing hippies or anarchists who suddenly have an expectation of money, although no doubt they condemned the rich and their wealth when younger. Now some money might be about to fall into their hands, inherited from their careful parents, or from some capitalist scheme in which they are involved, or from damages they expect to get through the blame culture because they feel wronged, and suddenly it is a different game. The name of the game is greed, avarice, call it what you will, and their twenty-year-old selves would have been shocked if they knew what they would become.

I talk these prospects through their options, which for UK-based people with UK-based family histories are fairly restricted, they get all upset at not being able to keep all their money, and they spurn my preliminary advice because it is not what they want to hear. I never hear from them again, and to be quite frank that is a great relief.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

Have you submitted your Tax Return yet?
On our bikes
Exemplary Consulting for Business Support
Follow me on Twitter

March 2009 Tax Update and newsletter

2009-03-24T09:08:00.000-07:00

As it is frowned upon to paste a blog in more than one place on the Web, please follow this link to the newsletter. I do hope you find it useful.

HMRC Roadshow Essex

2009-03-03T07:28:00.000-08:00

The headline billing of the event I attended last week was as above, but upon arrival I was handed a brochure in which HM Revenue & Customs welcomed me to their Business Advice Open Day. The venue chosen, the Five Lakes Hotel was excellent, with plenty of room downstairs for the various stands as well as excellent conference rooms for the seminars going on throughout the day. We will gloss over the catering for which one cannot hold HMRC responsible.

I had heard on the grapevine that the roadshow was coming to Essex, but booked online using the information sent in a mail shot. In view of the very large number of attendees it was clear that the advance information and booking system had worked very well, for which credit should go to the organisers.

I am a tax professional, and the event was very much aimed at business in general, and small businesses in particular. Nevertheless, I have to say that I gained quite a lot from the day. Seven of the twenty-four stands represented various divisions of HMRC. They were promoting heavily their online services, and naturally encouraging businesses that had not yet taken the plunge to do so, highlighting the incentives and advantages. They had a stand where one could chat about VAT, and being a direct tax man myself I sounded them out on an issue which I had just started thinking about and had not got round to consulting an expert. The input was useful and the chap was very helpful.

HMRC also had stands for international trade (customs duties etc.), National Insurance and Research and Development Tax Credits, and one for the Olympics, the actual purpose of which I did not manage to ascertain, and for general advice. All the staff I spoke to were helpful.

Various other Government agencies were represented, from ACAS and Companies House through to local authorities and the Environment Agency. As one would expect, Business Link was very prominent, and they also ran some of the seminars. The non-profit concern Prime was also there, reflecting the reality that older people becoming unemployed need to consider how they might make a living in a hostile environment, perhaps becoming self-employed. Again, all the personnel on the exhibition stands were very helpful and I collected a lot of useful literature.

Turning to the seminars, I managed to fit in three. The first I went to was presented by a representative of the Intellectual Property Office. It was really excellent and the presenter is to be congratulated. The seminar was very informative and at a level designed not to blind everyone with science, and though I have been round the block, I learned quite a lot from it. It was made interesting by including a number of very brief examples of key points involving major companies of which we had all heard. It was really very good value for a 45 minute session.

The second seminar was frankly a demonstration of how not to do a presentation. The subject was “An introduction to Importing and Exporting”. It was a real “Death by PowerPoint” recitation, and rather than talking about the nuts and bolts of how to do things as was the IP talk, it consisted of listing the numbers of all the forms to be filled in at each stage of the process of importing or exporting, and frankly not much else. The tax rates on the slides were out of date, which seemed to surprise the presenter.

The last seminar I went to was from Business Link, and entitled “How to manage your business through a recession”. Wearing my critic's hat as a small business adviser myself, there was indeed some good generic material which would be useful and make people think. A few minutes were spent on dealing with the banks, and as the presenter was an ex-bank manager (of which there are going to be a few more) he did know what he was talking about. The Captain Mainwarings of today are useful people to know when you can get to talk to them. Anyway, this was a good presentation with useful information as to where to get further help, business coaching and training.

I enjoyed the day and HMRC deserve a good deal of credit for staging the event. They do need to use experienced and competent presenters rather than just experienced staff at their seminars, but maybe I am nit-picking at what was a very worthwhile exercise. If you have an HMRC Business Advice Day in your area, I recommend that you make the time to go.

Have you submitted your Tax Return yet?
Follow me on Twitter

Casualties in the tax world

2009-02-13T11:10:00.000-08:00

It seems there are a considerable number of people in the accountancy and tax world who have lost their jobs, and many more who will fear the axe. I was surprised to hear of a quite senior person who had left his Big Four job at a regional office having moved house and uprooted his family to move there. No matter what “leaving package” he has been given, the reality is that if he does not find another post soon his standard of living will fall and he and his family will have to draw in their horns. There are many people in the job market now in our sector and the over forty-fives will have great difficulty in finding jobs even after the recession recedes, though realistically that may not be for two or three years, even taking the more bullish view.

What will our redundant colleagues do whilst the economy bottoms out, and will they all find it harder to get back in in a profession where there is a culture of filling roles from younger and cheaper trainees rather than appointing the more experienced?

I wonder how smaller practitioners will be affected by new payers forced to come into the market as sole practitioners or small partnerships. In the online world this is easier than it used to be, but for those used to maintaining a good standard of living there would be considerable pain whilst building a practice against those of us who came into the market from the last accountancy recession. I think that many will be forced to go elsewhere and be more flexible.

I remain optimistic for my own business because it already “lives lean”, whilst providing a quality service, and there are only so many clients out there though there will be more start-ups as time moves on. For an established firm, it is important to maintain standards and market as well as we can. My firm had an advantage in that it was born at a time when there was only a downturn in the accountancy world. Now it is national and global. It is a sad situation when able people who have worked hard to be qualified and to be good at what they do, only to be dispensed with en bloc in a numbers game.

Have you submitted your Tax Return yet?
Follow me on Twitter

Online issues and January procrastinators

2009-01-21T01:40:00.000-08:00

I do not normally use the HMRC online software to do Tax Returns as third party is much less hassle. However, I did have occasion to try it recently and found that in dealing with lettings where there is a loss in the year and a loss brought forward the HMRC system is unable to aggregate them and carry them forward. When I telephoned the helpline and finally got through I was told it was a known issue and I should make a diary note of losses brought forward for 2008-09.

I would have thought that this loss scenario would be the most common given the highish interest rates on mortgages that prevailed to the end of 2007-08. It is extraordinary that this issue has not been sorted out. I decided the safest approach was to make a white space note about it.

I have just taken a call from a new enquirer. He sold his company twelve months ago for a lot of money, received a termination pay off as well, has a lot of paperwork to go with it and can I quote a fee for working out his tax position without having seen any detail anyway? Can I do his Tax Return for 2007-08 by Saturday week?

Well, no I cannot quote other than the high fee I told him to err on the safe side. Would you ask a painter to quote to decorate your house if he hadn't been to it? Could we do it anyway in the time when we haven't seen any of the paperwork in detail and other clients are in front of him? We're happy to do it in February and in the context of £100 fines it seems more important to get it right given the amounts involved rather than lose sleep over a late-filing penalty. Anyway, what kept him so long?

I am sure our marketing friends would think I missed a trick somewhere and sales people would think I should have "closed", but what with the shortage of telephone boxes to change in I am not sure what I could promise if the Return had to be done by the end of the month. I believe I did the right thing and am not going to lose any sleep over it.

Back to work with the other January late runners and thank goodness for my more considerate clients!

Tearing my hair over small company housekeeping

2009-01-12T11:30:00.000-08:00

Like others in the profession I try to drum into my clients that they should practice good housekeeping in their businesses, remember that their company's money is not their own and to ask me before doing anything out of the ordinary. This is the time of year when we tend to find that some clients have ignored our advice and painted themselves into a corner from which even I with my skills and long experience have difficulty getting them out in a painless fashion. There are some golden rules in running a company and I am not normally into quoting Government ministers, but this is what Margaret Hodge recommended in 2007 when at the DTI:

1) Act in the company's best interests, taking everything you think relevant into account

2) Obey the company’s constitution and decisions taken under it

3) Be honest, and remember that the company's property belongs to it and not to you or to its shareholders

4) Be diligent, careful and well informed about the company's affairs. If you have any special skills or experience, use them

5) Make sure the company keeps records of your decisions

6) Remember that you remain responsible for the work you give to others.

7) Avoid situations where your interests conflict with those of the company. When in doubt disclose potential conflicts quickly

8) Seek external advice where necessary, particularly if the company is in financial difficulty.

All this is pretty important – keeping the company's money away from the owners' own money, minuting all payments to directors and all dividends to shareholders, and avoiding conflicts with personal finances. Obvious stuff and I even send the above list to new owners of companies.

The other golden rule is asking their tax adviser before doing anything they haven't done before. I really could scream sometimes because often even after we get a client's books and records in it is only with close questioning that we can get to the bottom of what they have done. This is not because they are dishonest but because they are suddenly too embarrassed to tell us what they have done as they know we will not be pleased. It is like dealing with naughty children and we just have to be patient, but why do we have to find out when up against deadlines? It's no wonder I'm getting thin on top but I always present a calm demeanour and will never tell a client off except in the most polite terms.

The real point of this piece is not to have a moan, but to emphasise the importance of good record keeping, good planning and asking advice before doing anything out of the ordinary. Even for small companies and businesses good corporate governance is essential. It is only common sense after all!

Recession blues or an opportunity?

2009-01-05T09:33:00.000-08:00

The tax world is not immune from the current economic problems and already many tax department employees of larger UK firms such as KPMG have been made redundant, most particularly in the corporate sector. The financial press has reported employee shedding by KPMG during much of 2008 and we must assume that other firms are also making their staff redundant. These are strange times and it will be shattering for those who suddenly do not have a job and may have difficulty finding a position anywhere given the surfeit of people suddenly on the market.

One supposes that whilst the employment agencies may have a huge number of candidates on their books, they are also facing the immediate future with trepidation, given the limited opportunities.

Few of those perhaps very capable and well qualified tax specialists now out of work will have much immediate prospect of work. Whilst personal tax specialists might try to eke out a few pennies going self-employed there will be meagre pickings as it is the wrong time of year to be starting and almost none will be commercially street-wise in understanding how small independents find work in the first place.

I cannot suggest that I thought myself particularly lucky when I found myself in the position the newly redundant in our sector are now in; seven years ago I did not want to be redundant and indeed thought I was a pretty good performer. My then employer panicked somewhat over the Arthur Andersen debacle / crash and embarked on a last-in first-out campaign with its staff. Therefore I had my own recession to deal with seven years ago, and it took me the best part of a year to reconcile myself to running my own business. Now of course I would not want to do anything else, despite the fact that conditions are undoubtedly very difficult with fee resistance and slow payment being a particular problem. It is a time to sell on value and at least I know many of the tricks now.

I believe that the opportunity small practitioners have is in compliance. Of course none of us can really sell what is perceived as very cheap. We have to buy equipment, software, reference resources and CPD quite apart from the overheads of running an office. However, small is definitely beautiful in terms of income-to-cost ratio. The particular trend I have seen is actually an increase in demand from clients for tax compliance, but at the same time advisory work has dropped off. One place where there is no recession is enquiry work, and that is largely thanks to HMRC (did I think I would ever say that?) in their campaign against the black and grey economies, which has pushed several new clients into my lap. No, I am definitely not complaining.

It seems to me that my marketing must concentrate on good value compliance with useful advisory work available. Indeed I would recommend it to anyone in my sector and of similar small size. We can succeed where others with larger offices, overheads and a need to provide training cannot.

So, the answer is to stay positive, offer value for our clients, and give them every bit of help we need. We need to get out and network, meet as many people as possible and help them. I know it might be hard to grasp in our sector, but give out some free generic advice and a helping hand, send out a newsletter, use on line facilities to keep as high a profile as possible and keep reminding your business contacts what you do. If you are stuck for marketing ideas talk to my invaluable friend and marketing expert Fraser Hay. This last paragraph applies to everyone in business too, including my clients, not just us working in the tax sector.

We have to stay positive because we have no choice, but to reiterate, there is an opportunity for the small practitioner. Call me on 01702 205066 or email jon(at)tax-adviser.biz if you need clarification. Good luck!

Jon Stow

Gordon in Wonderland

2008-12-11T01:32:00.000-08:00

The BBC reports the Downing Street reaction to the comments of Peer Steinbruck, the social democrat German finance minister but The Times reports the comments with less spin.

I would not have thought the remarks were that controversial. I expressed similar views in this blog on 28^th November, and I was not alone.

"You are old, father Gordon," the young man said,
"And your hair has become very grey;
And yet you incessantly stand on your head
Do you think, at your age, it's the way?

"In my youth," father Gordon replied to his son,
"I feared it might injure the brain;
But, now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,
Why, I do it again and again."

Thanks and apologies to Lewis Carroll.

Tax tips hot off the press

2008-12-05T10:12:00.000-08:00

Subsistence for sole traders and partnerships

HM Revenue & Customs have for many years allowed sole traders and people trading in partnership to claim reasonable subsistence costs on business trips involving overnight stays away from home, though they have generally resisted allowing costs of meals away from home or office on day trips, relying on case law which states that one eats to live, not to work. Claims to deduct the cost of lunch and other snacks on day trips have thus been refused.

Of course employees have generally been allowed to reclaim such subsistence costs without being taxed on them and many sole traders may well have slipped through claims for their obviously healthy lunches in blissful ignorance of a strict interpretation of the law

Anyway, HMRC is proposing to allow for all sole traders etc. reasonable day trip subsistence costs in the course of business, such as the motorway burger, and are enshrining what has sometimes been allowed on a concessionary basis (where a daily trip might have been outside the normal pattern of travel) into legislation and altering their own guidance manual for their staff. What costs are “reasonable” is not exactly defined – it could even be £30 which might be about the going rate for a motorway lunch - but you still have to keep your receipts!

UK based US taxpayers

Most US taxpayers receiving non-UK income or gains between April 6, 2008 and December 31, 2008 will now owe both US and UK tax on the same worldwide income. (The UK significantly changed the rules for resident ‘non-domiciled taxpayers’ from April 6, 2008.) US tax specialists are suggesting that in most cases the simplest way of avoiding this ‘double-charge’ is to ‘pre-pay’ additional UK tax by December 31, 2008 so that they can set the UK tax paid against the US tax liability for 2008. This is fine in theory, but UK tax due for 2008-09 is not actually payable until 31st January 2010. Therefore HMRC’s system will want to repay any tax that it perceives as “overpaid” prior to that date, and certainly would not allocate to UK tax until that tax became due. US taxpayers are likely to have a lot of headaches over this one, telling HMRC to keep money on the account.

Residence issue

There was a somewhat surprising High Court judgement finding that a South African commercial pilot based in South Africa but with a UK property he used for overnight stays should be treated as resident in the UK (as well as being resident in South Africa). The pilot in question flew long haul for British Airways. It has long been accepted that a person may be resident in more than one country for tax purposes (in which case where both countries would seek to tax a person there are “tie-breaking rules) but the particular surprise here was that it was found that the pilot’s presence in UK was found to be “not merely transitory” because he had a permanent contract to fly out of Heathrow.

I will not go into too much technical detail, and there may well be an appeal, but this does indicate that the long arm of HMRC is extending ever further, and those of you who spend most of their time outside the UK need to be aware that it is important to update your professional adviser on your movements, particularly if you visit the UK frequently for work purposes.

Certificates of Tax Deposit

If you do anticipate having to pay large amounts of UK tax in the future and have put aside funds for this purpose, it is worth mentioning that HMRC pay quite generous rates of interest up to the due date for payment of the tax, possibly better than the high street banks. You could say they are as safe as the Bank of England, though that may not be as safe as it was, and HMRC does its general banking through Alliance & Leicester these days. However, being serious, and if you have to pay tax at some point CTDs are well worth considering.

Bank and personal guarantees

There was a case recently which might become very important in the light of the current economic climate. A director had given a personal guarantee for a company in which he was a 5% shareholder, and then a month after he left, the company collapsed and the guarantee was called in. He tried to set his loss against his employment income, but this was not allowed because the expense was not incurred in the course of his employment – he had left. This was rather unfortunate. There is a capital gains loss he can now claim, but without capital gains profits to set this against he is very severely out of pocket. I suppose that if you have given a guarantee you should hang on in the business until after it is called in – not always practical or even legal in some circumstances as it is unlawful for a company to continue to trade whilst insolvent.

In this case, an appeal is unlikely to be successful.

Demibourne – “self-employed” deemed an employee

HMRC has issued new guidance on procedure where a self-employed person is found in reality to be employed. There is now a power to set the tax paid by the person when supposing he or she was self-employed against the PAYE tax for which the employer becomes due for the same period. Of course the employer will still be liable for significant extra National insurance Contributions and interest and penalties as appropriate, but previously income could have been actually taxed twice over in such circumstances. The new guidance is here. (Click!)

Filing online

For those of you whose tax returns are still outstanding you have to file online by 31st January 2009 your 2007-08 Tax Return. If you do not have a professional adviser (why not?) remember that there was complete chaos at the end of January 2008 with the Revenue’s server failing completely. It would therefore be wise not to leave your returns until the last minute. If you do have a professional adviser then make sure all your papers and records have been provided if not by yesterday then at least within the next week. Remember that no return preparer can make any guarantees to submit returns timeously as we get close to the deadline.

Frustration

2008-12-01T01:55:00.000-08:00

Only a few weeks ago I complimented the local office of HM Revenue & Customs on their prompt response to a request. The lady in question definitely earned Brownie points.

A couple of weeks ago I telephoned the agent's line of our local tax office to ask for a print of a subcontractor's earnings for 2007-08 from their records. As I told the person, this was not to circumvent the proper checking of our client's records and paperwork, but as an added check because at the beginning of the introduction of the new scheme in April 2007, some main contractors had not got their acts together. This was to the detriment of the subbies and to my client.

Anyway, I was told to send in my request in writing. Fine. A bit of extra time taken up but I complied, of course. I have now received a letter from “Customer Operations” saying basically that we have to go back to the main contractors first (whose records we know were not straight otherwise we would not be asking) and only then would HMRC be able to help because “complying with such requests is very time consuming and resource intensive for us”.

Really? Under the old scheme it was a question of a couple of key strokes. Is the new system so much poorer? It was supposed to be better. How much more resource intensive would it be to help me out than pressing the buttons to churn out a standard letter on two pages declining to help?

The letter also makes a threat of a fine of £3,000 for subcontractors who do not keep adequate records. Well, if you are a carpenter working all hours and not computer literate and you rely on your performing arts coach wife to keep the records (and I think she does a more than adequate job in the circumstances) what is the point of sending out a nasty letter like that? The point is that if we were not taking adequate care we would not have asked.

I thought our task was to work together to ensure the taxpayer (customer) pays “the right amount of tax”. This letter is from Customer Operations and if you received a letter in similar vein from a commercial business you would be complaining to the Office of Fair Trading.

The fact is we are not customers. If we were we would take our business elsewhere. If HMRC knew how to deal with the public properly and how to cut costs in the right places we would not be receiving letters like this. Old timers like me remember when you could always speak to someone who knew what he or she was doing within the walls of the old Inland Revenue, and if IR needed some information or a detail to complement a tax return, they would telephone us and get it sorted out.

For a long time there have been regular meetings between tax practitioners and HMRC under a programme called “Working Together”. I really wish HMRC were serious about this, but sadly they just don't get it. It's pathetic!

Exorcising ghosts

2008-11-28T12:56:00.000-08:00

Whilst on the subject of Hamlet's father's ghost, in my post “As ye sow” on 13th of this month, I mentioned the spectre of income shifting legislation and was worried that it might be sneaked in whilst we were looking at the drastic measures being introduced to save the country from ruin. No, it's not funny.

In the PBR we were told:

"The Government firmly believes it is unfair to allow a minority of individuals to benefit financially from shifting part of their income to someone else who is subject to a lower rate of tax, known as income shifting. The Government has consulted on this issue but, given the current economic challenges, the Government is deferring action and will not bring forward legislation at Finance Bill 2009. The Government will instead keep this issue under review."

I explained a year ago how fundamentally inequitable such measures would be – see here.
My sources tell me that the Treasury and HM Revenue & Customs think that implementation of any such legislation is impractical and too expensive to administer. Phew, what a relief! I hope it's true.

www.jonstow.com

A hard taxing week, Horatio!

2008-11-28T10:47:00.000-08:00

Readers of this column know that I am not a great fan of the Government’s economic and taxation policies, so may well be expecting me to take another swing at the Chancellor and his organ-grinder boss. However it is true to say that my disappointment at the content of the Pre-budget Report given last Monday by Mr. Darling is not because I would oppose any of his policies on principle, but because I truly believe that the measures announced are not the right ones, and that they are again treatment of the symptoms of the economic malaise, and not of the underlying cause or disease.

There were announcements of increases in benefits such as Child Tax Credit from January instead of April, and additional earlier payments to State Pensioners, and this type of thing does put money into the economy, though it will very likely have to go towards higher fuel costs compared with this time last year, and help pay off any overspend at Christmas. However, the disappointing reality is that many people are very hard up and pretty much all the increase in benefits is likely to be mopped up.

Of course there is the very tight squeeze on credit following on from the banking crisis, and I am not going to rehearse the background to this other that to say it might have been a lot less serious if the Northern Rock crisis had been addressed properly in September 2007 when it came to a head, and not at the beginning of 2008. There is however a shortage of money to spend, which is why I am confused as to the thinking behind cutting the main VAT rate from 17.5% to 15%, albeit in time for Christmas, with a guaranteed rise in Employers’ and Employees’ National Insurance from 2011. Naturally the latter rise will raise billions towards the borrowing the Government has embarked on to spend its way out of this mess but to me it highlights muddled thinking.

We all agree that there is not enough money being spent to keep the economy going and keep people in work. However, surely the cut in VAT on what will be largely imported consumer goods relates to voluntary expenditure which people anyway are reluctant to make. It might save a few retail jobs in Currys (though DSG are not doing so well) but what people really need to spend money on is food and fuel. Food is zero-rated for VAT purposes and domestic fuel and electricity keeps the 5% rate. I suppose the thinking is that people will spend money on those things because they have no choice, but the logic behind increasing the duty on vehicle fuel to compensate for the VAT cut makes not much sense even in a twisted green world. What it will do is increase the price of food because it will be an extra expense on the food retailers who could recover the input VAT but not the fuel duty.

The decrease in VAT on the imported items will be offset by the higher import costs because of the decline of the pound as a result of the economic downturn, so in cutting the VAT rate, Mr. Darling bears more than a passing resemblance to Don Quixote. Not a pretty sight!.

What scares me is the terrible price we are going to pay. The VAT cut will be very expensive for the Exchequer, and will be one reason why the NIC rate is going to go up in a couple of years if Mr. Darling has his way. The fact is that tax does have to go up, but as NIC is such an easy tax to manipulate I am at a loss to understand why it has not been used as a tool now.

If instead of cutting VAT, Mr. Darling had cut NIC at least for next April that would have given most employees and immediate boost and if Employers NIC had been cut that would have been a help to the cash flow of small businesses who are still the backbone of the economy, even if the Chancellor does not understand them. Oh, yes, losses can be relieved back three years now for tax purposes, but many small businesses cannot sustain losses for long in this climate and any sole trader with significant losses would most likely be stacking shelves in Tesco (not that isn’t an honourable job) rather than soldier on with negative money for any length of time.

The trouble is that for small business it is on the whole jam tomorrow. Small companies have to make the losses and wait for repayments down the line; it does not help them now. Never mind, the corporation tax rate for any small company making a profit next year is staying at 21% in April rather than rising to 22% as had been intended; a year’s reprieve. Now, only a couple of years ago the rate was 19% and I have never read any justification, official or otherwise, for the increase in the small companies’ corporation tax rate. Increases in allowances for plant etc. are generous this year and the ongoing rates are also reduced, but they assume that companies have money to spend. If they do, they had best spend the money on marketing, because there are opportunities still if business owners remain positive.

I just wish that the Chancellor and his cohorts had thought about the real world, not cutting taxes on imported goods that may be out of our price range now anyway. You cannot pull money out of people’s pockets to spend it on what they don’t need if the money isn’t there. We need early concerted action to cut the cost of all our mortgages (surely the banks want to retain control over their destiny rather than succumb to what John Prescott called Old Labour policy c 1947) because that is what is needed to help revive the economy. Otherwise the whole “cash injection” looks misdirected. An NIC cut would have been so useful, and more immediate than the VAT effect (if any) even if it could not happen until April.

I guess the lesson is that it is more important to be doing something positive than to jump about appearing to be doing something. I say this more in sorrow than in anger, because I would love the Government’s strategy to work for all our sakes. I just fear that we will pay the price without ever seeing the goods.

© Jon Stow 2008
www.jonstow.com

Government and Data Protection - Security, schmecurity?

2008-11-21T00:37:00.000-08:00

Last year’s membership list of the British National Party has leaked into the public domain and there will be many politicos who will take great pleasure in leafing through the names to embarrass certain individuals. At the same time there is a great deal of schadenfreude amongst senior politicians. In political terms this is understandable, and few reading this (and the writer) will have any sympathy for the views of the BNP, though in some ways their political ideas seem anachronistic as well as unpleasant.

The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, succombed to political temptation on air in saying that members of the Labour Party would not mind having their names published. I doubt she had polled them all in advance and membership of any political party is often considered a private matter by the individual concerned. Ms. Smith finally conceded “everyone had the right to protection under data protection laws but it was up to Dyfed-Powys Police whether to take the matter further.”

The Home Secretary’s relaxed attitude is in a context where so many businesses in the professions and otherwise have to hold a licence to keep private data on pain of heavy fines for any leak. I myself was at a presentation on this very subject a couple of weeks ago, yet even in the wake of the loss of the entire Child Tax Credit database, information about prisoners, details of military personnel, their families and new applicants to the forces still the Government and its staff do not seem to take the matter seriously. We know that important data has been lost, even though there is no need to carry it round on a laptop. If you “found” my laptop you would find there would be no data about my clients whatever, though you could possibly read my “raw” blogs if you were that patient.

Anyway, data protection is not that hard as long as everyone knows there is a policy and is careful with their memory sticks. However, Jacqui Smith’s off the cuff remarks were unhelpful and do not inspire confidence in the Government’s turning over a new leaf in its approach to data security. Security, schmecurity?

As ye sow...

2008-11-13T01:48:00.000-08:00

It is always difficult to write in advance of the Pre-Budget Report, though we understand that it will be happening shortly. In some past years the PBR has been in October, but the Government would say it has had other things on its mind; in other words the “credit crunch” and the apparent impending recession. Of course, it depends on what business you are in as to whether you think there is a recession now, and the effects will bite on different people and businesses at different times. However, clearly the collective spending power of the nation will be affected.

The delay in the PBR is we assume because the Government is thinking about what measures it can take to address an immediate problem. Normally the twice yearly Budgets we have got used to take a longer term view. In the meantime we have been left with the spectacle of the Bank of England desperately cutting lending rates in an attempt to kick start the economy or at least relieve beleaguered mortgage holders (most of us) and ironically stimulate the housing market. Of course this points to a good part of the problem. Anyway, the Bank says it is cutting rates as it has most recently with a 1.5% reduction because it has calculated that inflation will fall below 2% anyway, whilst we understand that the economy may shrink by half a per cent a least in the next year; maybe more depending who you believe.

It is nice that the Bank has remembered that it was supposed to be using the interest rate tool as a way of controlling general inflation. In recent years it has wound the rate up in order, it said, to control house price inflation specifically, whereas before about four or five years ago it seemed to look at the general inflation rate, which is what we understood was important. Indeed it was important, and therein lies part of the damage that has been done. The general lending rates for business are what has caused a good deal of damage to the economy underneath whilst the Bank has been looking at house prices, and now, surprise, surprise, businesses are struggling. Apart from the construction industry and retail sales fueled by easy credit, those of us out in the real world know that the business environment has been slow for about three years because of the lack of genuine spending money in the economy..

The Bank of England, in increasing interest rates over the last couple of years has of course been treating the symptoms of the disease, house price inflation and consumer spending, rather than curing the disease, which has been the ridiculously easy credit available. Of course mortgage lending regulation had been hived off to the Financial Services Authority, an impotent and useless quango as we know form their failure to regulate properly the pensions industry, but even so one would have thought there might have been some dialogue. Of course it would not have saved the US sub-prime market from coming to grief, but we might have been much less badly off in the UK if people had not been defaulting on mortgages they could not afford and never should have been given in the first place.

So where does this take us on the tax front? Business does not react well to jam tomorrow, so any new stimulus to spend money such as a hoist in capital allowances will not help in the short term, any more than a cut in corporation tax for small businesses (or delaying the current locked-in increase to 22 %) would help us now. The Government has already painted itself into a corner even with the current level of borrowing. Remember also the fiasco requiring the Chancellor to increase the individual personal allowance for 2008-09 to compensate basic rate taxpayers for the loss of the 10% rate band? Will this have to be locked in for future years at further cost to the Treasury and us when the chickens come home to roost and the borrowings have to be repaid?

A quick stimulus to the economy has to put money in people's pockets now. Anything of this ilk will be very costly indeed. What would be most effective would be a cut in Employer's National Insurance because this would help business now. Schemes such as the Conservatives' idea of cash to business to employ the longer-term unemployed might to a degree be self-funding but even this will have a delayed effect.

Anyway, the Government and Gordon Brown are now reaping what they and the Bank of England have sown. In the end, we shall all have to pay. What really worries me is that MPs and the financial press will take their eyes off the ball when it comes to the Pre-Budget Report and the Chancellor will sneak in something nasty, such as a revised attack on family businesses with the income-shifting proposals we saw this time last year as a reaction to the Revenue defeat in the Arctic Systems case. Such a thing would hardly lift the mood and sentiment in small businesses, but the Treasury hitherto has not understood the reality on the ground, and is unlikely to now in the light of a “painting over the cracks” Mini-Budget.

© Jon Stow 2008

Funnily enough....

2008-11-09T07:10:00.000-08:00

Whilst we complain about the time it takes to process tax returns, I asked the local HMRC office recently to process a Form 64-8 authority for my firm to act, and issue a new reference number. They turned it around in a week. Well done, and take a bow, South Essex Area! Sefton, take note.

We need to remember most of the inadequacies of the Revenue are not the fault of staff we deal with day to day. They do their best. Mind you, please don't call us customers. As if we had a choice....

Ulterior motives and deadline woes

2008-11-03T00:59:00.000-08:00

Well, the deadline for submitting paper tax returns for 2007-08 has passed with Halloween, and with it the Government’s trick or treat. The trouble is that this messing around with deadlines really is a trick. We have until 31st January 2009 to submit Self Assessment Returns online, and the real reason for the earlier deadline for submitting paper ones is to force online submission to save costs. HM Revenue & Customs probably hoped that people would not get their acts and papers together by the end of October, and would be forced to investigate the online process, either doing it themselves if computer literate, or otherwise having to employ an agent. Then they will be locked in for the future to the online system.

Now, as an agent this will bring me more business, but the truth is that HMRC have got their cost cutting in early; they have already cut so many staff and are so short of resources that they take a long time to process paper returns. It is known that the Sefton office in Bootle is months behind in dealing with paper returns. Even where returns have been submitted for several back years following discoveries by HMRC of possible undeclared income, they are still taking weeks and months to compute liabilities. They used to be so hot on that, but trained staff who understand tax technicalities are in short supply in HMRC.

I feel very sorry for the staff that have to answer the phones. None of them knows anything about tax and consequently each has to take a lot of flak. We are not allowed to talk to those who actually understand and do real case work.

The deadline change for paper returns suggested by dear Lord Carter was just a ploy to get returns submitted online and get the Revenue computers to do all the work. Yes, it saves taxpayers money but it does not help the older taxpayers or those who are not used to computers; in the main it will cost them money to have their tax affairs sorted out.

Has the Government and HMRC been entirely honest about this?

That reminds me...

2008-07-24T02:42:00.000-07:00

Mark Lee explains here (it's a PDF)why he gave up giving tax advice.

A bit over a year ago I met Dave Hartnett with other Essex-based tax practitioners, and was disappointed by the degree to which he saw all of us as the enemy. There seemed almost a paranoia that we were all trying to do HMRC out of tax which was rightfully theirs. In reality, mostly what we do is ensure proper compliance by our clients and prevent their paying to HMRC more than is rightfully due to HMRC; these are entirely different matters.

I find repressing the Stalinist attitude in modern government when the goal posts are constantly moving and there is legislation on the hoof like some sort of Band Aid culture rather than a serious attempt to make the whole environment of law making better. True, there are consultations, but then the feedback is usually ignored and the Government departments go ahead with their original proposal. I wait with trepidation the next dog's-breakfast proposals on income shifting. The Treasury is like a dog with a bone in that it will not leave impractical and unfair ideas alone. We are bound to have another ill-conceived attempt in this area.

Tax Returns and Crimewatch

2008-06-28T10:42:00.000-07:00

People in my business have been wrestling with a problem outside our control for the last couple of months, and that relates to Tax Returns. For a few years, now, HM Revenue & Customs (as it now is) has been encouraging everyone who files tax returns to “do it on-line”, and especially tax agents such as my firm. This will be the fourth year we have filed clients' tax returns on-line, and by last “tax season” nearly all the problems had been ironed out. Most agents use third party software to file on-line, as the Revenue's own system is very cumbersome and involves everything being entered whilst connected to the internet, and with an irritatingly short time of inactivity before one has to re-log in. Those agents involved in the last mad rush on 31^st January 2008 had little difficulty in filing on-line as their data transmissions went through even though the server for the Revenue's own filing software crashed on the vital day. So of course, we agents were reasonably happy, though we could not at that time access details such as what our clients had paid on account.

However, HMRC had commissioned a report from Lord Carter (see here ) as to how things should be done in the future. There have been changes because of representations mainly by the professions involved, but as a result of this, paper personal tax returns have to be done by October this year though the last filing day for on line returns is still 31^st January next.

One curious recommendation which has stuck is that all facsimile returns have to be in the Revenue's own PDF format so that paper ones can be scanned in using OCR. One can see the point if we are posting paper returns, but actually we are supposed to transmit the details electronically, so the logic defeats me. Anyway, what has happened is that the returns have been completely redesigned to fit the paper PDF format so that the facsimile returns we agents used to send to clients for approval are no longer acceptable to HMRC (even though we used to PDF them anyway). Consequently this has meant a complete rewrite of the software by the third part providers. Well, that's their job of course, but who ends up paying for this?

Anyway, the software people have done pretty well, but guess what? HMRC's software for processing the on-line transmissions has all sorts of problems, tax returns are getting rejected for no sensible reason and time is wasted by agents on the telephone to their software support people who are swamped. One of the most stupid errors is that the tax return says that if sole traders have a turnover of less than £30,000 then they do not have to detail their expenses but just lump them in one box. However, HMRC will reject a return done on-line on this basis even though one is following the instruction to the letter.

It all seems to be change for the sake of change, or a result of that other bugbear of corporate and government-speak “modernisation”.

This bring us to Crimewatch, the June episode of which was shown on BBC1 this week. For years it was presented from a studio by experienced broadcasters and whilst a little formulaic it held interest because of the material but also because of the attention to continuity and minimal distraction. So, some bright spark at the BBC obviously decided to “modernise” it, get rid of Nick Ross probably because he was “old”, and change the compelling and considerable journalist Fiona Bruce for Kirsty Young. Not content with that they have scrapped the studio and present the programme from some sort of warehouse with scaffolding and gantries as furniture, they cut between various non-professional broadcasters who are or were police officers but don't know how to talk to a camera, and keep having different segments by these people in different parts of the warehouse. Poor Kirsty Young, an experienced broadcaster herself stumbles round this dark edifice and at times seems as bemused as many of we viewers at home. The programme could be interesting if the content were well presented, but its earnest production is not entertainment and some of us are going to switch off.

My lesson for the BBC and for HM Revenue & Customs? If it ain't broke..........

Domicile......again

2008-06-14T13:19:00.000-07:00

Most people probably have only a vague understanding of the meaning of the word "domicile" and even fewer realise that it is a distinct legal concept, and one which may affect a number of people considerably in determining the amount of tax they pay.

So, what is domicile? Domicile is essentially a legal concept which is also recognised in those countries who have inherited their legal system from Britain, and that includes the USA in this case. It is something everyone has, that one is born with, and is hard to change. Domicile is normally determined at birth, and for UK purposes in most cases it is inherited from one's father. It might not be the country in which one was born, but the country which one's father considered his permanent home. In the case of a person who was illegitimate or whose parent's divorced during his or her minority, there may be different factors to be considered.

Partly for historical reasons and partly to recognise continuing minor variations in the law to be applied, no one is actually domiciled in the United Kingdom; rather a person may be domiciled in England or Scotland, for example. The concept is enshrined in long-standing case law and does not always sit well with the equal opportunities climate.

It is possible to change someone's domicile with a good deal of difficulty if that individual severs all ties with the country of domicile of birth, establishes a home in a new country, perhaps buys a grave plot there and spends many years in the proposed country of domicile of choice. Unfortunately, when people become older and their health deteriorates, they may come back to their domicile of origin (the one they were born with) for treatment and ruin everything. Dedication is needed.

At this point you are thinking, "Could this affect me?" Well, for those who have domiciles abroad but who are resident in the UK, they have hitherto had the opportunity to pay much less tax in the UK than the rest of us, but they may not have realised it. "Unfair!" you may cry, but nevertheless it is true. Anyone in this category should speak to an adviser about back tax years and whether a repayment of tax might be in the offing.

However, the law changed in April 2008 and anyone who thinks he or she might be resident in the United Kingdom but not domiciled in a UK country may well be affected and should seek urgent professional advice because the UK tax regime will become much harsher.

In the simplest terms, prior to April 2008 a UK resident non-domiciled individual was not taxed in the UK on income and gains arising abroad but not remitted to the UK.

Unless such individuals are prepared to declare and be taxed in the UK on their worldwide income the new rules from 6^th April 2008 impose an annual charge of £30,000 on non-UK domiciled or not ordinarily resident individuals who claim the remittance basis of taxation, if they have been resident for longer than seven out of the past 10 years (unless their unremitted foreign income and gains for the tax year in question are less than £2,000).They remove income tax personal allowances and the capital gains tax annual exempt amount from those who claim the remittance basis (unless their unremitted foreign income and gains are less than £2,000). As I said, this is a brief summary. There is a lot more to it than that.

There is a need to plan for the future. We all know business owners and others living in the UK whose families originate from the Commonwealth, mainland Europe and North America and perhaps from elsewhere. They may have been born within UK shores, but their fathers may not have been. The law rubs both ways. Given that those of us who are domiciled within the UK might have a hard job convincing the Inland Revenue of our overseas domicile even if we have lived in Marbella for 20 years, so someone whose family is from Hong Kong may still retain domicile there even if that person has been in business in England for many years.

The above is only summary of the current situation, which is actually quite complex, and it is believed to be correct at the time of writing. To reiterate, if you believe this issue affects you or may do in the future then you should seek professional advice.

© Jon Stow 2005, 2007, 2008

Post-holiday blues

2008-06-14T10:03:00.000-07:00

I have been a bit quiet of late. You could understand that a number of developments in the UK tax world have pretty much left me speechless. We have had the Budget, largely flagged in advance with the capital gains changes etc. but the income-shifting fiasco has been put on hold. Unfortunately it is not a dead duck and will reappear not much changed, I suspect; a serious canard if ever there were one.

We tax advisers have a job squeezing our holidays in these days but we managed a couple of weeks in May in the steam room that is Florida at this time of year. Whilst I had my back turned, Darling had another Budget to compensate those who lost out from his organ-grinder's announcement of the abolition of the 10% band – well, one of them – in the 2007 Budget. Everyone knew about what had happened last year, except apparently the Government's own MPs. The give-away will apparently cost the Exchequer £2.7 Bn. This will be why the Government probably secretly welcomes the high oil price, at least in the short term, because of all that lovely extra tax it is collecting. After all it cannot really borrow any more, can it? Oh, well, I expect you are right.

Anyway, time is money for businesses, so I am especially upset at the problem we are having preparing and filing Self Assessment Tax Returns on-line for 2007-08. I said at the end of last year that the HMRC on-line system was much improved. So what happens? Wholesale change at the behest of Lord Carter and all the work and progress over the past few years has gone out of the window. I have lost time with the software not working, my supplier is over-stretched and work is not getting out of the door as I would like (any of my clients reading this need not worry; they will still get the same good service but it is just costing me more at the moment). If it ain't broke.....

Stinking fish!

2008-02-27T04:01:00.000-08:00

Like all of us here I am sure, I detest tax evaders, those who fail to declare their taxable income and gains yet enjoy the services that the rest of us pay for in the United Kingdom. HM Revenue & Customs have the moral high ground on this issue, and I applaud their stance in pursuing those individuals who are evading tax and might as well be taking the cash from our own wallets and purses for all the difference it makes in moral terms. Anyway, I hope that my position is clear.

However, we now learn that HMRC has paid £100,000 for information stolen from a bank in Liechtenstein by one of its now former employees. It seems HMRC thinks this is in order because other countries may have done the same. The trouble is that such payments for illicitly come-by data put us all at risk because more employees with an eye to the main chance will look for a quick profit by selling data about any of us, and who is to say that the purchasers will be only the Treasury or other Government bodies here or abroad. I know what HMRC’s own attitude would be if the two missing CDs containing the names, National Insurance numbers and bank account details of Child Tax Credit claimants were sold by one of their employees or indeed any individual.

I believe that if you take the moral high ground to which you are entitled you must avoid moving to the slippery slope where you are not a great deal better than those you wish to catch in your anti-tax evasion net. Receiving stolen property is an offence, isn’t it?

Of course, if HMRC had come across the information without paying for it, we might take a different view. I remember when I was about nine being found in possession of a girly pin-up magazine. “Where did you get that?” asked my mother. I replied truthfully “I found it in a puddle outside the railway station on the way home from school.” Not guilty, as would HMRC have been (in my view) had they been sent the information unsolicited.

As it is, I believe HMRC have let themselves down and the rest of us also. I smell something unpleasant. Is it just me, or do others feel the same way?

Links:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/02/26/cnhmrc126.xml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7262549.stm

The lighter side

2007-12-31T03:49:00.000-08:00

I would not want people to think that I spend the whole time moaning about the government’s fiscal policy. The trouble is that I started this blog at the time when there had been announced a number of ill-considered policies. But, hey, let’s not say it is all doom and gloom.

As a tax practitioner I have to say that HM Revenue & Customs’ online filing system has been working well this year, at least for Self Assessment Tax Returns. I do not use the online filing for other purposes sufficiently to judge. I think that the user interface for HMRC’s own software is a lot improved and easier to understand, though I use commercial software for Self Assessment. That system uses FTP (I think that is what it is called) and when I started with it a couple of years ago it was very fussy and would reject returns for silly reasons such as characters it objected to. However, as I said, it all works well now, so well done to HMRC for this.

Then again, one has to laugh at some clients who deliver their papers over the Christmas period and expect feedback before the New Year. Yes, of course we poor souls have to work over the holiday, but that is on behalf of clients who delivered their papers at the end of November and early December. If only life were that easy. Receive each set of tax return papers, spend five minutes putting it all together and preparing a return, bill the client and go back to sleep. Actually we work rather hard and aim to give the clients a great service which is value for money, but we cannot manage too many quick changes in telephone boxes. I cannot even think offhand where there is a convenient telephone box in our area.

What I hope for 2008 is that we will have a new era of cooperation with HMRC to get the compliance done, and that there will a better understanding of tax agents’ issues on the part of HMRC (which might develop eventually from the “Working Together” programme) and that we can on our part stop blaming HMRC for everything and lay it on their political masters if we must. It would be nice if HMRC did not call taxpayers “customers” when they cannot take their business elsewhere. Dave, are you listening?

In the meantime, I must get back to working miracles for my clients and doing everything yesterday (it would be great if we could process all the information before we received it) and hope we advisers get a bit more appreciation. I appreciate others when they go beyond their duties. I would thank some staff in HMRC if one were allowed to know their full names as one often isn’t, but there have been one or two, even a few recently who were very helpful. At least they are all very polite (but then so am I).

Happy New Year to all HMRC staff, to anyone who happens to find this blog, and of course to all Rabbit’s friends and relations.

Domicile puzzles

2007-12-29T11:05:00.000-08:00

Then again, what are we to make of the so-called reforms relating to the taxation of non-domiciled residents in the UK? This was one of the policies the Government has pinched from the Tories following the policy announcements at the Conservative Party conference. The Tory proposal proved that the Government does not have the monopoly on misguided (did I hear you say daft?) policies. So why borrow this one except to trump the Opposition?

During its ten years in office the Government has discussed several times changing the rules concerning non-domiciled persons, which in simple terms are those whose background or family history might suggest their natural homeland is not one of the countries comprising the United Kingdom. For a more detailed explanation see here. A study was made in 2005 and there was a consultation, but we had started to suppose that the Treasury saw the whole issue as a political hot potato.

Briefly, unlike domiciled resident individuals who are liable to UK tax on their worldwide income and capital gains, non-dom residents have up to now been taxable on their UK income of course but not their overseas income and gains except to the extent of the amounts actually remitted to the UK. It had been the view of many that if taxation of worldwide income and gains were extended to non-doms many of our richer guests including oil billionaires would take themselves and their spending power elsewhere; hence there had been no amendment to the rules since the first review was announced way back in 1949.

The new rules effectively bring most non-domiciled residents into a regime of being taxed on worldwide income unless they pay annually to HM Revenue & Customs £30,000 plus whatever tax is due on remittances as before. Of course the super-rich will go for this unless they see this as an unprincipled betrayal and leave the country. Those who will be hit are the non-doms of moderate income who have brought their labour and investment to the UK, perhaps employing people in their factory, workshop or restaurant; those who hope to retire in their homeland or elsewhere. Of course there are long-term resident (seventeen years plus) non-doms who already knew that if they died within the UK their worldwide estates would be liable to inheritance tax.

The Government talks a lot about fairness. One might say that it is not fair that some taxpayers of a particular class pay less tax than others with similar income. Is it fair that the very wealthy can buy off HMRC with a £30K bribe or paying annual protection money? Is the Treasury reduced to acting like the Mafia or an East End gang? Worse, is this not another example of the total lack of coherent fiscal policy? What on earth is going on?

Dickering Darling delays amending capital gains reforms

2007-12-15T06:03:00.000-08:00

What are we to make of Alistair Darling's delay in the announcement of any amendments to his proposals on capital gains tax “reform”? He told the Commons on Thursday that he was postponing any decision on change until the New Year.

In my view, commentators tend to hang too much on what might be motive. There was, I am sure, genuine concern from the Chancellor and the Government that they had put their foot in it and made a serious misjudgement, and I am sure that that Treasury Civil Servants will have felt the wrath of their political masters over this matter. There was of course quite a “Clever Dick” or maybe “Clever Alistair” element in the Pre-Budget Report last October, which was a real “rabbits out of the hat” performance of the type we usually associate with the Budget itself. Of course, many Budget tricks have little impact and are designed for show. Unfortunately in many ways, the particular announcements made in October do have genuine impact and we all know a couple were designed to trump the policies announced by the Conservatives at their conference.

The reform of the position concerning treatment of non-domiciled taxpayers (or non-taxpayers) is not very intelligent any more than was the Tory proposal, but I will return to that another time. The Inheritance Tax change also borrowed from the Tories is hardly a give-away except in the sense that it will save some legal fees related to will making.

But back to capital gains tax. The Government proposals sweep away a raft of complications in calculation of gains, some of which have been in place since 1965, and yes, they will be simpler to administer or for taxpayers and their advisers to calculate gains. However, it is hard to see why the taper relief for business assets is being replaced by a flat rate, therefore increasing the effective rate of tax for most sellers of such assets from 10% to the 18% flat rate, an increase in tax of 80%, while at the same time reducing tax on investment gains from between 30% and 40% to the 18% flat rate. It is fine for investors, of course, but seems to involve little insight in an understanding of the realities of the change on the part of the Treasury. Why 18% anyway, which is a strange rate? Maybe someone was fond of the construction industry income tax flat rate for subcontractors which was in force until April this year, and wanted to keep the number on the tax tables somewhere.

Of course, many buy to let and other property investors will be delighted with an 18% rate. Investment in property has been booming under the current Government since the late nineties. My own theory as to the reason (partly because it was my wife's and my reason) is that this is the result of:

the disastrous consequences for the pension industry and people's pension funds of the removal of the dividend tax credit refunds (Gordon Brown's first Budget in 1997)
the other pension disasters brought on by subsequent funding problems for many pension schemes,
the regulatory failures such as Equitable Life (where many lost some tens of thousands) which whilst it was not entirely the Treasury's fault, it played its part.

So I believe that the popularity of property investment amongst the less wealthy is as a result of Government policy. Now, with interest rates so high, many are subsidising their mortgages to a degree, and few are making any income profit on lettings where they borrowed anything like the maximum. Income losses are the norm, though many will hang on (those who can afford it) for their hoped for capital gain down the line. The trouble might be those who cannot afford to pay the mortgages and will try to cut and run. That could cause the whole market to lose confidence, which has the potential for disaster.

So, back to the capital gains issue as it affects small business owners who may wish to sell, and the prospect of paying 18% tax after 5^th April 2008 rather than 10% on their gains. Why the delay in announcing changes? Well, I am sure it is nothing more sinister than the Treasury not knowing what it is doing. People say”why is Government policy so against small businesses?”. Well, I don't think the Government is against small businesses. It simply has no policy, or at least no long-term thought-through policy with regard to small business in general.

I also think that ideas tend to come from different places.. The 18% capital gains tax trick comes from the Treasury Civil Servants (I speculate) who do not understand the old system and were anxious to have something they could understand, though they did not appreciate the consequences of their changes. The income-shifting document on which I commented last week is much more driven by HM Revenue and Customs, anxious to make up for the Arctic Systems defeat and to prove that their leadership knows what it is doing. This is coupled with HMRC's deep suspicion of small businesses, which it feels are mostly on the fiddle. Having had brief exchanges earlier this year with a certain someone who has had a recent promotion in the upper echelons of HMRC following the tax credit data loss debacle, I have the distinct impression that this suspicion is extended to the small businesses' tax advisers too. We were told we should be more helpful. In the good old days we tax practitioners worked in partnership with the Revenue to get things right (all right, there were some naughty schemes for the very rich, but most small businesses were a long way from being able to take advantage). Oh, the days when we could talk to someone in the Revenue who had a file, someone who would telephone to clear up a query, when it was all so much less confrontational!

We tax advisers should not all be tarred with the same brush, and neither should business owners in general.

What to do about business asset capital gains tax? I would have had a new acquisition base point of 5^th April 1998 and abolished taper relief except for business assets, and I would be surprised if the cost to the Treasury would have been all that much, though I accept that part of the motive for the change announced was a tax raising exercise. Probably we will get some sort of retirement relief, maybe £100,000 exempt and then 18% flat rate. If we just have a £100K lower rate band that will be a stupid fudge which will not win the Government any friends (and it needs friends).

I just hope that whether under this Government or a future administration HMRC and the Treasury policy makers and planners do put together a coherent strategy for managing business taxation, and that Ministers take responsibility for their actions and for their failures. Here is an irony: Paul Gray as Chairman of HM Revenue & Customs did fall on his sword over the lost CDs crisis, even though this was not his personal responsibility. He deserves great credit for that, and I would love to see honour, principle, competence and vision, rather than suspicion, drive fiscal policy.

Income shifting: the Government’s paper published in December 2007.

2007-12-09T09:49:00.000-08:00

The document “Income Shifting: a consultation of draft legislation”

is the Government’s response to the defeat of HM Revenue& Customs in the Arctic Systems case, Jones v Garnett, which concerned a “husband and wife” company where the wife received a substantial distribution of profit as dividend by virtue of the share in the company for which she had subscribed. The Revenue had sought to assess the husband on the wife’s share of the income under settlements legislation dating from the 1930s.

Despite the so-called consultation period, this is another example of legislation on the hoof, which is likely to be bad legislation, difficult to understand for tax payers, difficult to interpret for advisers because of the grey areas likely to be thrown up and pretty impossible for HMRC to police. I can see many enquiries initiated on scant evidence, vast amount of taxpayers’ money being wasted, and lots of professional fees incurred without much increase in the tax uptake by HMRC.

Firstly, the consultation period is all too short and ends on 28^th February 2008 only shortly before the next Budget and at best a couple of months before publication of the 2008 Finance Bill. At least one recent consultation, that before last year’s “interventions” contacting taxpayers over the telephone or in writing concerning supposed problems in their Returns indicated that HMRC had already made up its mind and that engaging the professions, CCAB or otherwise, was in reality a sham. This is of course as a result of politically driven policy and reflects the attitude of Ministers and their political appointees. I do not wish this to be seen as another example of Revenue-bashing. It just seems to me that in being expected to implement ill thought out legislation and indeed to understand their duties at all in this respect, the HMRC on the ground are almost as much victims of policy as the vast majority of basically honest small business owners and their poor advisers, and it does show how out of touch our political masters are.

The document avoids mention of married couples, families or civil partnerships as specific targets, whereas surely these are the classes of individuals at which the new legislation is aimed. This is quite extraordinary in my view.

We cannot expect that there will be much reasoned opposition when the Finance Bill is discussed. Debate is often curtailed and MPs’ eyes probably glaze over when tax is mentioned, except in the context of headline tax rates, which we know disguise the true burden of taxation (vide the FA 2007 cut in the basic rate of income tax from 2008-09, which essentially will make no difference at all to the majority of individual taxpayers with the loss of the starting rate of 10%; indeed there are some who will be worse off).

In the context of lack of reasoned debate, one suspects that few politicians will get past page 4 of “Income Shifting: a consultation of draft legislation” where Box 1.1: Examples of income shifting” (the only one illustrating the circumstances of a married couple) suggests that Nina, by paying all her profit through dividends to herself rather than half to Charlie, her non-working husband, has avoided paying income tax of £6,039, and if she had been a sole trader she would have paid £15,414 for 2007-08. Well, yes, but the example fails to mention that the company would still have paid 20% corporation tax, viz. £12,000 tax however the profits had been distributed as dividends.

Whilst I am of course cherry-picking the nonsense here, this example is in the introduction, and is disingenuous – yes, it is spin and disguises the reality, which is that £12,000 tax has been paid as opposed to nothing, which this example appears to suggest.

In Part 3 of the document there are a number of examples of what will be deemed income shifting as well as some that will not. Of course this is far beyond where the politicians will read. One can see the logic of some (in Treasury terms anyway and assuming that they are starting from a reasonable premise just for a moment), but there are worrying misunderstandings about the way life works and indeed the way families work (OK, an out-dated concept).

Example B (P.24) says:

B.74 This example illustrates a scenario that would be covered by the income-shifting legislation. Despite each partner providing equal labour for the business, a tax advantage is obtained through a division of income between the partners that does not reflect what they would be entitled to in a normal commercial arrangement. This is because of the differing levels of capital they have introduced to the business.

B.75 Individual 1 and individual 2 form a partnership and start trading as a local grocery. Individual 1 introduces £200,000 of capital into the business, which is used to acquire the shop premises and stock. Individual 1 and individual 2 both work full time in the business and develop it together. Neither individual 1 nor individual 2 bring any special skills into the business. Trading profits for the year are £80,000, which are split between individual 1 and individual 2 equally (i.e. each partner receives £40,000).

B.76 The new legislation would apply in this case because income has been shifted. The profit share received by individual 1 and individual 2 do not reflect the balance of labour and capital put into the business. The arrangement whereby individual 2 is entitled to an equal share of the profits and a return on capital of the business even though individual 2 has not contributed any capital appears to be non-commercial. Individual 1 has forgone income that individual 1 may have otherwise received in relation to the capital contribution (i.e. a return on individual 1’s capital).

I hope you will forgive any stereotyping in the next paragraph or so, but suppose Mr. Patel is given £200,000 by his father. He works in a grocer’s shop for a while, where he meets Mrs Patel to be, the daughter of the owner. They get married, and Mr. Patel uses his £200K to by a decent corner shop business. They have some acumen which they have acquired selling goods for others, but neither has a special skill which could be defined, beyond an eye for business. They run their shop as a partnership, sharing the profits equally; after all they both work hard and the shop is open from 7AM selling newspapers, sweets and the dreaded tobacco products until 11 at night when they might sell a little alcohol.

Is it really fair that because Mr. Patel originally bought the shop and business with his money, he should be taxed on a larger share of the profit than his wife? After all, they work so hard and probably could not manage individually with the long hours and having during slack periods to pay someone at least the minimum wage. Again, is this fair? HMRC thinks it is. I don’t.

Mrs. Giles-Hunter inherits a farm from her father. She has been running the farm for some time effectively as an employee before her father’s death, but it is very large and a great deal of work. At the Young Farmer’s Ball she met a young man named Hunter, who is experienced in farming, but being the second son will not inherit his father’s farm. They get married, and move into Mrs. Giles-Hunter’s farmhouse, and they run her farm together with a formal partnership agreement. They both have equal skill as farmers through experience, they increase their profits (no mean feat these days) and they share the fruits (the profits) equally. Because it is Mrs. Giles-Hunter’s farm and for legal reasons she cannot give half of the land to her husband, should a larger share of income be attributed to her because essentially the business is based on her capital?

Are we really going to deny families proper reward for their joint endeavours, which are in many instances what bind them together as a unit? My last example might cause some difficulties under the current rules and of course one might try to separate the land from the buildings, machinery and goodwill for the exercise, but to try to assess one person unequally when the other works equally hard seems nonsensical and out of touch.

The paper says that the income shifting legislation does not mean that businesses will have to maintain additional records, yet from the farm to the corner shop, one might think that timesheets would have to be completed to show the amount of work contributed by individual partners or directors. Without them there may be a large problem in that HMRC enquiries especially for the less well represented deem taxpayers guilty until proved innocent. Of course HMRC largely relies on professional advisers to do the self-assessment job for them, notwithstanding the relative contempt shown for these advisers and their conduct in the higher echelons of HMRC (and I have pretty much heard this attitude from the horse’s mouth).

In reality professional advisers will be better placed to implement the new rules then HMRC, which will continue to bark up many wrong trees, and one really has to wonder whether their projected tax yields even if true will show the Treasury any profit given the costs of recovery if HMRC has any significant involvement through the enquiry system. The general cost assessment contains a number of arbitrary statements without justification of the basis. There is of course no talk of redistributing the presumed increased yield amongst other cash-strapped taxpayers.

The new raft of legislation will not be based on “fairness”, and “the right amount of tax”, two favourite Treasury mantras, or on preserving family unity and values. Rather we see old-fashioned paranoia exhibited by out of touch Civil Servants and politicians who have forgotten that what drives Britain, “the nation of shopkeepers” is a continuing sense of talent and entrepreneurship which is overlooked in the current climate of low taxes for big business only, and the Stalinist attempt to regulate the lives of every individual who dares to have expectations of rewards for their efforts.

Adam Smith would be sorry to discover that the Government is no longer influenced by shopkeepers. Indeed it has rather taken against them.