h1

and another thing

May 13, 2016

A correspondent reminds me that, not only is HMRC  haemorrhaging newly-trained (and expensively-trained) younger staff, it is also stiffing its older and more experienced staff too.

Here’s how it works.

HMRC declares that they will be setting up a new Regional Centre in Shinytown.  There will be three thousand staff, lots of exciting career development opportunities, a bright and glorious future…

….except you work in Grotsville.  It’s sixty-five miles away, but you could theoretically drive there in less than an hour, if everyone else didn’t have the same idea at the same time.  And you had a car.  What you actually have to do is walk twenty minutes to the station, take a two hour train ride and then a twenty minute bus ride plus a five minute walk.  And then the same in reverse.  Every day.

Well you could move house, yes, but HMRC won’t pay for it, and anyway the kids have exams.  So you could maybe work in Shinytown and live in Grotsville for a couple of years while the kids finish their exams and *then* move?  You can eat the five hours a day travel time, for a while, if you have to.  What you can’t eat is the six grand a year train and bus fares you’ll have to pay, not when your salary has stayed the same and your take home pay has actually gone down for the last couple of years.  I mean, you’re well paid compared to some people, but not as well paid as all that.  (Remember when MPs’ salaries used to be tied to yours?  You have to laugh, or you’d cry.)

But the last straw – and I mean the last straw, the one that actually broke you – is this.  You’re not being offered a job in Shinytown at all.  No, HMRC is recruiting – something like 9000 shiny new staff to sit in its shiny new offices, with no background or history in how taxes work or the department’s history and ethics and all that canteen culture stuff.  No.  Shinytown will be opening next year whatever.  Grotsville won’t shut till 2020.  Until then, you’re stuck.  Oh, yes, didn’t we say, you can apply for a job in Shinytown and, if you get it, travel at your own expense to the land of career development opportunity.  Or you can stay in Grotsville till it rots, till the last moment when the doors are about to be shut, at which point you’ll be “redeployed” to Shinytown.  If there are any vacancies…

Remember that Dilbert cartoon about how it turns out employees *aren’t* our most valuable asset after all? I couldn’t afford the fee to reproduce it, but here’s the link to look at it for yourself http://dilbert.com/strip/1993-03-03

h1

Value for money

May 10, 2016

“A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing” is, famously, the answer to the question “what is a cynic”: perhaps, however, it should be the answer to the question “what is an austerity politician?”

As a retired tax inspector and trades unionist, I still receive copies of ARC news, the journal of the union of senior HMRC professionals, and the latest issue dropped on my doorstep over the weekend.  There is an interesting article on HMRC’s approach to flexibility.  (Essentially most tax professionals could do most of their work from wherever they happened to be, if HMRC provided them with the modern computer and communications equipment to support them and didn’t treat them like children who need to be under the grown-ups’ eye.)  However the passage which interested me was this, and I hope they will forgive me for quoting it in full.

I’ve even heard suggestions that some folk, about to come off the department’s key training scheme as Grade 7s, have been told they are likely to be placed straight into the redeployment pool.  We can’t stop the private sector poaching our trainees – after all we recruit great people, we provide great training and then we pay well below the market rate – but it does seem quite a perverse approach to put someone through this expensive training process only to say, in effect, “we don’t want you”.

So let’s get this straight.  The government pays to recruit people into a career as a tax professional.  It trains them, expensively (because they are a cost to the department in salaries, accommodation and the provision of training and mentoring but are not yet producing the kind of tax yield we get from full tax professionals).  Then, at the point where their training is complete and the investment might start to pay off, we tell them they’re no longer required?

You see, I suppose it could be some kind of machiavellian plot to ensure that the entire tax profession was socialised into the HMRC way of thinking.  It could be, I suppose, if we believe HMRC to have sufficient institutional self-awareness to understand institutionalisation and understand that it actually has a viewpoint.  Why would the industry trouble to support trainees through long and expensive tax training if it can poach HMRC’s, just at the point where they’re trained but not too expensive?  But, ha ha, they all have imbibed the HMRC values with their mother’s milk and will carry on the rest of their careers believing that HMRC is right and the rest of the industry is wrong???

No, I didn’t think so either.  Dear tax industry: get poaching!

h1

Your Friday moment of zen…

May 6, 2016

I’m sorry to do this to you, but I have a terrible ear worm:
Panamana (tune: “Ma na ma na”, the Muppets)
Panamana
Mossack Fonsecka
Panamana
Dave Cameron…
Panamana
And then George Osborne, the expats, the non-doms, big business and the multi nation als

Wealth doesn’t trickle down, it just gets stashed
Just gets stashed
Just gets stashed….

h1

Sandwich man

April 11, 2016

I don’t think there is any smoking gun for David Cameron in the Panama papers from what we’ve seen so far.  He sold his shares before he became Prime Minister.  He moved into accommodation paid for by the taxpayer, so he rented out his own place.  He pays tax on the three to six grand he receives in interest. His dad left him money below the inheritance tax threshold, and the family planned for inheritance tax by making inheritance-tax-free gifts to each other, as allowed for in the legislation, so that their wealth could follow John Major’s ambition of cascading down the generations.  He has done nothing wrong.  Right?

I was once in a queue at a supermarket – twenty years ago now, it must be – in the “five items or fewer” stream, behind a bloke who, I couldn’t help noticing, had more than five items in his basket.  I had given him a Stern Look, but he was impervious, so I said “this is the five items queue…”

By this time he was unpacking his basket onto the conveyor belt and so had to try and charm both me and the assistant.  But he had enough to go around, broadcasting genial bonhomie as he declared, well, there are two sliced loaves and a packet of ham in here, and that’s just a sandwich really, so that makes it… six.  Oh, and tomatoes.  A ham and tomato sandwich.  So it’s only five items *really*.

But he was unpacking his basket quickly, and he had his wallet in his hand, and it would have taken longer to make a fuss and have him move to a different queue and start again, and the fact that he had blatantly queue-jumped and was trying to charm his way out of it, well, life’s too short.  Right?

Privilege at work.  Someone who goes to the supermarket once in a blue moon can’t believe that the petty rules about what goes in your basket can apply to them.  Most of our leaders have never had a proper job but they know what will motivate the unemployed.  Cameron might not have got through Eton on a paper round but he leads a political class who genuinely believe they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps so they are the exception to any rules.  He’s a man with two loaves, a packet of ham and a punnet of tomatoes telling you we’re all in it together and why are you persecuting him when he’s only eating his sandwich.

h1

Resource usage

April 7, 2016

If you look at HMRC’s list of deliberate tax defaulters here you’ll see pubs and sandwich bars, window salesmen and an eBay trader.  You won’t see many accountants or wealth management companies and there’s nothing there that screams to me “concealed overseas assets and income”.

There’s an interesting piece of qualitative research here which looks at the attitudes of people given prison sentences for tax evasion as a result of the “volume crime initiative” – which looks at VAT fraud, undeclared income and use of fraudulent documents.

And, I don’t know about your google skills, but I can’t seem to find a more recent “HMRC most wanted” list than this one from 2013 which shows a gallery of… well, click on them yourselves.  VAT fraud, fag smuggling, a smuggler of non-EU garlic incorrectly described as ginger

I have a simple question for HMRC.  How many staff (how many “FTE” – full time equivalent – staff) are engaged on the detection, investigation and prosecution of booze and fag smuggling.  And how many are engaged on examining the Panama papers and will be allocated to investigate and ultimately prosecute any wrongdoers?

h1

Panamanorama

April 5, 2016

Day.  A plane takes off.  Our reporter looks manfully into the camera.  “Tax haven,” he says.  He walks down a sunlit beach towards a generic office building.  “Look,” he says, “why would a lawyer have an office in a tax haven?”

Night.  A plane is landing, silhouetted against a London skyline.  Our reporter is seen in profile, sitting in his car, looking manfully at a pile of documents in a folder on the seat beside him.  “Hundreds of thousands of documents,” he says.

Day.  Our reporter is walking alongside another white man, on a path through a field.  “But did you?” he says.  “Look,” the other man says, “I have already emailed you the answers to your questions and I’m not going to give an interview.  Now can you go away please?”  “Yes, but DID YOU???” asks the reporter.  “Go away,” the man says, going through a gate into a garden.  The reporter stands outside the gate and looks mournfully into the camera.  “Well, did he?” he asks.  “We may never know.”

h1

Before the Panama papers…

April 4, 2016

I am writing this at seven o’clock on Monday evening, before Panorama airs its programme on the Panama papers, so it’s not based on any knowledge of the programme but on the various comments I have seen on FaceBook and other social media today.  I just want to say three things.

First, tax is not “a private matter” (as the PM’s spokeswoman apparently told The Guardian).  The Prime Minister’s salary is £143,462 and is widely used as a measure of what is meant by a substantial salary, not least in various shock horror stories in the press.  If he is also the beneficiary of an offshore family trust which hasn’t paid tax, do we really think this is a “private matter” or something which should be disclosed in the public interest?

Secondly, is it not time that we took the shackles off HMRC with regard to taxpayer confidentiality more generally?  As Jolyon Maugham has written today:

I could stand, smiling, on national news, next to HMRC’s Chief Executive and declare that I had paid every penny I owed and even if HMRC’s Chief Executive knew this [to be] an outrageous lie she would still not be able to contradict me.

Personally I can see no reason why tax returns should not be open to publication under the Freedom of Information Act, and particularly that MPs’ and Lords’ returns ought to be laid before Parliament (so that it would be a resignation matter were they found to be inaccurate).  But if that is a step too far, can those clever legal eagles amongst us not devise some form of unshackling that at the very least allows HMRC to give one of three responses when asked:

  • This person has made a return and their self assessment has not been audited.
  • This person’s self assessment has been audited and no major issues were found.
  • This person’s self assessment has been audited and either negotiations are ongoing or they have repaid £x tax plus £y interest and £z penalties.

Finally: can HMRC deal with the Panama Papers effectively at all?  By which I mean, do they have the resources?  Back in 2013 ARC, the union of senior managers in HMRC, put forward a Budget submission where they requested

Additional legal resources, 150 trained lawyers and 50 legal assistants, to accelerate litigation of the Tribunal backlog and accelerate yield.

Cost       £45.5m
Projected yield over 4 years to 2016/17       £2000m

Did they ever get their 200 additional legal and paralegal staff?  Are they now staffed to examine the panama papers and take forward any prosecutions that might arise?  Does the government seriously want them to, or would it rather they sat quietly on their hands, or “worked within their funding envelope”?

Take a wild guess.

h1

Consultation day

April 1, 2016

It’s that time of year again: the Budget is over but the summer recess isn’t quite upon us yet.  A good time for publication of consultations for some of the more, er, challenging ideas the government has in its bottom drawer.  If you go to gov.uk and search on today’s date you’ll see the following new consultations are out there from today.  And some are further out there than others!

  1. Set up a rival Revenue and Customs body.  Like the old joke about “how come there’s only one Monopolies commission?”, it has long been argued in certain quarters that HM Revenue and Customs would benefit from the injection of a little competition.  Well, now you have your opportunity to comment on the proposals.  Once HMRC retreats into its 13 redoubts, the proposal is to ask a couple of venture capitalists to provide the start up funds for new networks of tax offices and customs centres, based on the schools academy proposals.  The idea is that a local tax office would be part of a chain of offices owned by (say) Richard Branson or Lord Sugar.  Tax customers would then choose whether they wanted to pay the standard HMRC tax, the Sugar Tax (where all the tax rates would stay the same except for the one on Sugar, obviously) or the Virgin Tax, where apparently there would be spectacular savings for certain taxpayers who could pass some rather stringent conditions.
  2. Tax competition.  It has long been a government ambition for our country to be a place which is seen as “open for business”: where multi-nationals want to base their headquarters because the tax rates are low and the tax authorities are sympathetic souls who will understand.  The government now wants to extend this to individual taxpayers.  Tax competitiveness is for the many, not just for the few, is the slogan out front of some rather interesting proposals.  Essentially anyone with income over £50,000 a year will be eligible to register to vote in any constituency, not just the one in which they happen to reside.  They will be taxed on their income, using the Scottish Income Tax model, on a variable rate depending on their constituency.  Constituencies will be able to offer competitive tax rates via a new organisation led by Lord Gerry of Mander which will assess the likelihood of new voters changing the balance of power, although I have to say it is not entirely clear from the consultation document whether altering it is considered a good or bad thing!
  3. Tax simplification.  There’s a rather interesting proposal from the Office of Tax Simplification that would reduce the length of the tax code considerably.  In essence, it’s a new application of the “one in, two out” principle that applies to regulatory measures.  How it will work for tax is, however, quite markedly different, if the proposals are legislated in accordance with today’s consultation.  The lead proposal is to cap the tax code at its present length and reduce it by two pages for every page of new legislation introduced.  The clever part, however, is that the creeping repeal of existing legislation is done on a very simple brute-force basis.  If a Finance Act adds one page of new legislation to the “end” of the tax code, it simply repeals the first two pages from the “front” end.  If each new Finance Act introduces no more than fifty pages of new legislation at a time, the entire tax code will be down to nothing by 2356!
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?