Dreary me
November 2, 2017Dreary, dreary me. Well, not intrinsically me, you understand, but how I feel after the soul-sucking experience of looking at the Making Tax Digital (MTD) regulations.
Yes, we’re at that stage now. HMRC has given up trying to make us swallow the whole elephant of MTD and instead is pushing it at us one bite at a time. The primary legislation is in Finance Bill (No 2) 2017 (where the MTD section essentially says HMRC can make MTD regulations) and now the secondary and tertiary regulations are out for consultation here and in four attachments. Honestly, I wasn’t going to look, because it’s dreary. You know it is. Dreary, joyless, pettifogging and unnecessary. Look at this, from the Income Tax (Digital Requirements) Regulations
6.—(1) Subject to paragraph (3), “digital records” for a business means records of each of the transactions made in the course of the business, including—
- (a) the amounts of the transactions;
- (b) the dates of the transactions, according to the basis used by the relevant entity for recording transactions for the purposes of income tax; and
- (c) the categories of transactions into which the transactions fall, to the extent those categories are specified.
Please. Get a life.
If this regulation is passed, businesses affected will have to keep records of the amounts, dates and categories of their transactions in “functional compatible software”. Lost the will to live yet?
Functional compatible software is defined in the regulations too:
“functional compatible software” means a software program or set of compatible software programs the functions of which include—
- (a) recording and preserving digital records in a digital form;
- (b) providing to HMRC quarterly updates and as applicable, end of period statements or Schedule A1 partnership returns in a digital form and by using the API platform; and
- (c) receiving information from HMRC using the API platform in relation to a relevant entity’s compliance with obligations under these Regulations;
“The API platform” is nonsense: one might as well say “the language” or “the alphabet” without specifying which language (Greek? Mandarin?) or which alphabet (Cyrillic? Or Japanese – kanji or kana?)
So the Statutory Instrument will also have to define “the API”? Well, it defines “API platform”:
“API platform” means the application programming interface that enables electronic communication with HMRC, as specified by notice made by the Commissioners;
which I take to be drafters language for “HMRC haven’t written it yet but they’ll tell you when they have”?
Dreary, pettifogging stuff.
But I’m an impact assessment specialist, so of course I turned to the impact assessment, or at least I tried to. Where is the TIIN?
The Income Tax (Digital Requirement) regulations end with the words:
EXPLANATORY NOTE
(This note is not part of the Regulations)
The Regulations [ ].
but there IS no explanatory note attached, so there is no indication of whether a TIIN was completed or where it might be found, and there is no actual TIIN attached.
The Income and Corporation Taxes (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) Regulations end with the words
Consent by the recipient is not required.
[TIIN]
Here’s what ought to happen. Governments say that they will not regulate unnecessarily, only where there is some “market failure” which means the government has to step in.
Does the government need to step in to force businesses to keep their records electronically in a way which will enable them to be sent to HMRC and for HMRC to read them? No Socrates, it does not: all that is required is for HMRC to build an electronic system which is demonstrably better than the current method of making returns of business profits and businesses will use it. Only then would it be reasonable to compel the last few recidivists to join in.
So, in a democracy, these regulations should be scrutinised by MPs before they are passed, and only passed into law if they are a reasonable way of achieving the policy objective.
MPs should do this by looking at the cost/benefit analysis in the TIINs and forming a view on whether the costs are justified by the benefits. They are hamstrung from doing this by the failure to publish a TIIN with the regulations. They should decline to rubber stamp something so… dreary. Joyless. Pettifogging. Unnecessary.
I challenge MPs to do their job. I will write to my MP and ask him to do his. I challenge you to do the same with yours.
tiintax 
Leave a Reply