Hypocrisy and unreasonable expectations of tax reduction

Or a cat in the West Indies

I have been writing recently about tax avoidance schemes and the Sirens who lure unsuspecting business owners and higher paid employees towards their rocky outcrops.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am certainly not against people managing their affairs to pay less tax, and it can be done without worry. It is just that there are so many offers from tax avoidance specialists which claim to reduce tax on business profits to very little in the hands of the business owners extracting it as income. The appeal is both to the greedy and to those who resent paying so much of their hard-earned cash in tax when they are making such a contribution to the economy by employing people. I have some sympathy with the second category.

When I was in the tax avoidance “industry” I saw both categories. I guess that in these moralistic times post-banking crisis it is hard to sympathise with the greedy but maybe it always was. I had a certain distaste for some of the clients I saw way back; those who wanted the yacht in Gibraltar and the house in Barbados mostly paid for by the Treasury. Those others who were less selfish but wanted more control over their money were easier do deal with. Yet both groups had to be apprised of the risks.

The world has changed. The climate has changed. Legal tax avoidance is second only to illegal tax evasion on HMRC's hit list. It is a hard thing to do with a scheme these days.

I am all for helping people save money by paying less tax. It is a significant part of my business. Sometimes though I get frustrated both by the clients' unreasonable expectations and the double standards on behalf of Government, by which I mean the machinery of the Civil Service and the environment which came about under the previous administration where there was (is) one rule for some working with Government organisations and another for others who don't.

We have seen a recent row about the head of the Student Loans quango working through his service company. We in the tax profession all know that the arrangement has nothing to do with saving him tax, but it is related to the Government avoiding its responsibilities as an employer re periods of notice, pension contributions and the like. And that is what happens throughout the Civil Service and the NHS where the “employer”, i.e. Government, prefers to pay contractors generally through an agency rather than having them as employees.

So all these contractors can save a load of tax either working through their company or using an “umbrella scheme” which for some reason HMRC often looks on benevolently.

I had a prospect come to me recently who wanted to have a service company to save him tax. He worked for one company, has done for eight years, and expects to do for a few more. I had to tell him that with the degree of control the firm and his agency had over him, he was a quasi employee and would be liable to the IR35 legislation which effectively would tax him as an employee. It wasn't on in his particular case. However, if he had been working ultimately for a Government or local Authority department my advice would probably have been different.

So we have overaggressive tax avoidance schemes which may not work. We have sensible tax mitigation which is the sort of work I do. In between, we have incredible hypocrisy in the Civil Service in how they engage many of their workers, and ignorance amongst Government Ministers who do not understand the culture of hypocrisy which has grown up over employment responsibilities and tax. That can't be right, can it?

Related articles

• Business tax and snake oil schemes (jonstow.com)

You CAN talk to real people at HMRC

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

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

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

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.

HMRC are broken

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!

HMRC postal delays can cause hardship

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.

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.

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

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

What are golden hellos?

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?

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

Weighing up whether your workers are employed or self-employed

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

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

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

Related articles by Zemanta

• Taxman extends consultation on penalties for tax advisers after protests (telegraph.co.uk)

Scary tax planning in a changing world

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?

HMRC tackles the medical profession with the Tax Health Plan

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