Archive for March, 2016

h1

Tax simplification and the post office solution

March 21, 2016

Have you renewed your passport recently?  If you have, you may have used the “check and send” service at the Post Office, where you pay £9.75 for post office staff to check it:

Pop in before 5.30pm and our counter staff will make sure you’ve filled in all the right boxes, signed the right sections, have the right documentation and that your photos are suitable.

They don’t guarantee that you will get a passport, but they do give you assurance that you’ve ticked the right boxes, written stuff in the right place, and met all the fiddly rules about what you can and can’t do in the photograph.

Why am I telling you about all this?  Because I have given up thinking that HMRC has any interest in (or, to be fair, any funding for) its customer service offering to the simmers – SIHMRs – taxpayers with Small Incomes and High Marginal Rates, an acronym I coined in this article on accountingweb.

Because, honestly, what accounting firm is going to want to check the tax returns – or will they even make tax returns? – check the tax position of people with income covered by the personal, savings, dividend, digital trading, property, rent a room allowances, when they have capital gains under 11k and a bit of gift aid?  They can’t go into a tax office any more.  They will often be the people who are digitally excluded (but even if they aren’t, does anyone have a calculator that will give them the right answer?)  But they aren’t going to want to phone HMRC, when HMRC will just give them the standard line that it’s their responsibility to get it right and everything they need to know is on the website.

What these people will need, I argue, is assurance.  Someone who will tell them, yes, you’ve not made enough to need to pay tax.  No, you don’t need to contact HMRC unless X happens.  Yes, you can tick the gift aid box as long as you don’t donate more than £x in this year.

Who will do that?

What the SIHMRs will need, I reckon, is a nice friendly equivalent of the Post Office “check and send” service.  Most of them would be happy to pay £9.75 for a piece of paper which says, yes, you did it right.

So.  Who’s going to step up and organise the service?  HMRC?  If you’re listening, how about some seed money to set it up?  Will someone like Tax Help for Older People, LITRG or Taxaid step in?  Could Citizens Advice offer it on a self funding basis?  I don’t know.  But someone has to do something, or there are going to be a lot of confused and angry people finding the “simpler” tax system more complex than the complex kind.

 

h1

Clearing the decks

March 15, 2016

It’s the day before the Budget. You would think that HMRC and the Treasury would have cleared the decks ready for the raft of new measures presumably coming towards us after the speech.

So I was rather surprised when a quick check of the “open consultations” tab on the gov.uk website brought up one outstanding HMRC consultation and four for the treasury.

The HMRC one is mildly interesting: “a consultation on the control of tobacco manufacturing equipment and possible licensing of those involved in the supply chain for tobacco products.” Woah, you might think: we’re going to have licensed tobacconists??? Turns out from reading the consultation document that there are already arrangements in place for tobacconists in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be registered: the issue for most of us will, I imagine, be how to get an equivalent process in place for England without on the one hand opening up a market in cross border arbitrage and on the other slapping an enormous administrative burden on some relatively marginal small businesses.

The four Treasury ones? The first two: Reforms to the investment bank special administration regime and Insurance linked securities are Letwin consultations. By Letwin consultations I am of course referring to Oliver Letwin’s explanation that the point of consultation isn’t to get “views” but to look for unintended consequences. No-one at the Treasury cares what you or I think about the investment bank special administration regime or about index linked securities. What they want from the consultation is for investment banks, accountancy bodies and major law firms to do some work for them on whether their proposals – whatever they are – work at all, work as intended, and will pass through parliament without annoying lobbying from the industries affected.

I sort of feel that, as this started as a blog looking at consultations, I really ought to read both consultation documents and attempt to form a view whether they are good proposals. I feel, however, that a Letwin consultation is designed to induce somnolence in the general reader, and I just don’t care enough today to even try, sorry.

I will reserve my indignation for the other two Treasury consultations. If you have the time and the inclination, I recommend looking at this one: the proposal to create a National Infrastructure Commission, or at least to put the “shadow” one that has already been set up onto a statutory footing.

This consultation closes on Thursday night (11.45pm 17th March) and asks, in effect, if we think it’s OK that the Treasury sets up a quango – sorry, that’s not politically correct these days, is it? Now we call them “non-departmental public bodies”. The Treasury will set up an NDPB which will produce a National Infrastructure Assessment (NIA) and do we agree that a GDP envelope would provide the most effective fiscal remit for the commission…

Can we imagine the post-war Attlee government setting up the National Health Service like this? The National Health Infrastructure Board would still be holding meetings to decide whether the GDP funding envelope would allow them to start building a hospital at some point in the not too distant future, if the existing providers didn’t mind too much and the government accepted their latest Health Infrastructure Advisory Report…

And the final Treasury consultation? They want to make public sector exit payments “fairer, more modern and more consistent”. In other words, they want to get rid of huge swathes of the civil service and they don’t want to pay the going rate for doing so. What? You thought any of those weasel words meant that they were suggesting consistent or modern fairness to their workers?