Tax Returns and Crimewatch

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

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

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!

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?

© Jon Stow 2008

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

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.

© Jon Stow 2007

Domicile puzzles

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?

© Jon Stow 2007

Dickering Darling delays amending capital gains reforms

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:

1. 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)

2. the other pension disasters brought on by subsequent funding problems for many pension schemes,

3. 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.

© Jon Stow 2007