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
Sunday, 16 August 2009
Saturday, 1 August 2009
Stirring the pot
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
“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
Saturday, 18 July 2009
Is "progress" disenfranchising the non-technical population?
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
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
Friday, 10 July 2009
A week of curiosities and a valuable reminder
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.
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.
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Out with the old…
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?
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?
Friday, 12 June 2009
Credit where credit’s due - HMRC v Annabel's
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
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
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
New tax amnesty and old habits
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)