HMRC cost -cutting will cost them dear

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

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

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

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

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?

© Jon Stow 2010

Taxing Times has moved

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

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