Institutions that Fine should be liable to fines themselves

If I miss a late payment for my tax with the HRMC I am usually liable to a fine. It is my mistake and I have to pay for it. When the HRMC makes a mistake with my accounting and thousands of pounds go missing, I am not able fine them back. At best I can expect a muted apology from them (this has happened before!)

When I get onto the wrong train at the station, a genuine mistake the train operator makes no room for my error and will fine me or make me upgrade my ticket at a huge expense. When the train is late or cancelled at the last minute, there is no accountability to the passengers. How is this fair?

When I go overdrawn on my bank, the institution will have no problems with charging me with a fine. When the bank makes a mistake with my money (accidental double charges for instance) I have to point it out and get it sorted. Why can't I 'fine' them for their mistake?

Why is this idea important?

If I miss a late payment for my tax with the HRMC I am usually liable to a fine. It is my mistake and I have to pay for it. When the HRMC makes a mistake with my accounting and thousands of pounds go missing, I am not able fine them back. At best I can expect a muted apology from them (this has happened before!)

When I get onto the wrong train at the station, a genuine mistake the train operator makes no room for my error and will fine me or make me upgrade my ticket at a huge expense. When the train is late or cancelled at the last minute, there is no accountability to the passengers. How is this fair?

When I go overdrawn on my bank, the institution will have no problems with charging me with a fine. When the bank makes a mistake with my money (accidental double charges for instance) I have to point it out and get it sorted. Why can't I 'fine' them for their mistake?

Scrap the CIS Scheme

Repeal all legislation imposing a different tax regime on the Construction Industry to the rest of the economy. The CIS scheme is complex (thanks to the Legal parasites), slow and unnecessary as the CBI reports that over 90% of Construction Industry paymenmts are on time and accurate. The current CIS scheme imposes fines on many small sub-contractors even when a mistake is entirely the fault of HMRC. Small businesses then have to find the time to appeal against these manifest injustices.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal all legislation imposing a different tax regime on the Construction Industry to the rest of the economy. The CIS scheme is complex (thanks to the Legal parasites), slow and unnecessary as the CBI reports that over 90% of Construction Industry paymenmts are on time and accurate. The current CIS scheme imposes fines on many small sub-contractors even when a mistake is entirely the fault of HMRC. Small businesses then have to find the time to appeal against these manifest injustices.

Scrap IPR (Inward process Relief) on imports/exports to eliminate fraud opportunities

We all know that VAT is payable on goods imported into the country, and a lot of companies rely on paperwork being processed by freight forwarders/agents to forward the Vat onto HMRC.   However, the system is flawed with IPR (Inward Process Relief)…. This means that goods can be released through the system with no Vat payable at the import time, and the payment deferred for up to 6 months, allowing companies to do complete another process relevant to the products and prepare them for re-export .

This, however, opens up the opportunity for fraudulant exporters/agents to take advantage of this IPR system, using legitimate companies Turn numbers to import goods and Invoice the company for VAT.  The company concerned pays the agent VAT for the goods. The company buys these goods for re-sale and is unaware that the agent has listed them as an IPR import.

The agent subsequently later exports other goods under the turn number of another company as these new completed reexported goods.  This completes the cycle and is almost impossible to trace due to the numbers of imports and exports.

This must be costing the government millions per year in lost VAT payments

All this could be avoided if it was compulsory for all companies to pay VAT directly to HM Customs and not to the Importer / Agent and in addition to this scrap the IPR altogether.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

We all know that VAT is payable on goods imported into the country, and a lot of companies rely on paperwork being processed by freight forwarders/agents to forward the Vat onto HMRC.   However, the system is flawed with IPR (Inward Process Relief)…. This means that goods can be released through the system with no Vat payable at the import time, and the payment deferred for up to 6 months, allowing companies to do complete another process relevant to the products and prepare them for re-export .

This, however, opens up the opportunity for fraudulant exporters/agents to take advantage of this IPR system, using legitimate companies Turn numbers to import goods and Invoice the company for VAT.  The company concerned pays the agent VAT for the goods. The company buys these goods for re-sale and is unaware that the agent has listed them as an IPR import.

The agent subsequently later exports other goods under the turn number of another company as these new completed reexported goods.  This completes the cycle and is almost impossible to trace due to the numbers of imports and exports.

This must be costing the government millions per year in lost VAT payments

All this could be avoided if it was compulsory for all companies to pay VAT directly to HM Customs and not to the Importer / Agent and in addition to this scrap the IPR altogether.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reduce VAT on improvements to that on new build

Improvements attract full rate VAT, new build only 5%.

Allow property owner to recover the difference in VAT by means of inspection by Building Control Inspector.

Why is this idea important?

Improvements attract full rate VAT, new build only 5%.

Allow property owner to recover the difference in VAT by means of inspection by Building Control Inspector.

Interest payments not an allowable business expense

Interest payments are currently an allowable business expense which results in lower taxation on funding business by loan capital than by equity.  This often leads to excess excessive gearing.  Taxation should favour equity over loan investment.  At the very least interest should be treated the same as dividends for tax purposes.

This problem was referred to in recent IMF consultation, but no recommendation made.

The incidence of the extra taxation could be relieved by reduction of other taxation on business such as corporation tax or employer's National Insurance.

Why is this idea important?

Interest payments are currently an allowable business expense which results in lower taxation on funding business by loan capital than by equity.  This often leads to excess excessive gearing.  Taxation should favour equity over loan investment.  At the very least interest should be treated the same as dividends for tax purposes.

This problem was referred to in recent IMF consultation, but no recommendation made.

The incidence of the extra taxation could be relieved by reduction of other taxation on business such as corporation tax or employer's National Insurance.

Equal VAT for new buildings & renovation. Green & saves our city’s

If you renovate or refurbish a building you have to pay VAT.
If you demolish it & build a new one you don't.
 
As a result thousands of reusable or should I say recyclable buildings are being demolished.
Some beautiful Victorian Edwardian & Art Deco ones lost forever & half the time replaced with dull cheep rubbish.
Which will probably be demolished themselves in 20 odd years as there so bad.
 
Not green at all, imagine the carbon foot print for demolition, removal of rubble, land fill for most of it,
manufacture of new materials, shipping them to the Uk no doubt, delivering them….
Reused building can have all the insulation & solar panels you need. So that not the reason to demolish.
 
Unequal VAT will make the UK look like Muiltonkeens in 50 years.
For example look at the old West Middlesex Hospital Site in Central London.
A Georges Victorian & Edwardian buildings ideal for converting with its courtyards & already 8or9 floors high so your never get planing for higher.
Now a huge hole in the ground with no plans for it.
If they don't want to lower vat on reuse & increase it on new build to level things out,
why can't they have some sort of green demolition tax on building built before the war ?
Its the 1960s all over again!

Why is this idea important?

If you renovate or refurbish a building you have to pay VAT.
If you demolish it & build a new one you don't.
 
As a result thousands of reusable or should I say recyclable buildings are being demolished.
Some beautiful Victorian Edwardian & Art Deco ones lost forever & half the time replaced with dull cheep rubbish.
Which will probably be demolished themselves in 20 odd years as there so bad.
 
Not green at all, imagine the carbon foot print for demolition, removal of rubble, land fill for most of it,
manufacture of new materials, shipping them to the Uk no doubt, delivering them….
Reused building can have all the insulation & solar panels you need. So that not the reason to demolish.
 
Unequal VAT will make the UK look like Muiltonkeens in 50 years.
For example look at the old West Middlesex Hospital Site in Central London.
A Georges Victorian & Edwardian buildings ideal for converting with its courtyards & already 8or9 floors high so your never get planing for higher.
Now a huge hole in the ground with no plans for it.
If they don't want to lower vat on reuse & increase it on new build to level things out,
why can't they have some sort of green demolition tax on building built before the war ?
Its the 1960s all over again!

Safety net for selfemployed

Where is the safety net for selfemployed who have not used public funds and who may be left at their carreers worse off then people who have been on benefits all their lives?

Why is this idea important?

Where is the safety net for selfemployed who have not used public funds and who may be left at their carreers worse off then people who have been on benefits all their lives?

Freelancer – Self Employed or PAYE?

Imagine, I am unemployed but want to work so I decide to start my own business. I don't have much money so can't incur overheads but I do have some skills so I approach some businesses and offer my services as a freelancer. I am happy to take on odd days work/projects and start building my business. Once I have some cash I can invest and expand but hang on there is a problem, no one will give me any work even though they want to? Why, because:

  • HMRC might class me as an employee and want the business to operate PAYE, leaving the business with a large future potential liability
  • As a new business it is a struggle to prove that you should actually be treated as self employed. I don't own lots of equipment, employ staff, work for lots of other customers (yet) etc.

A solution:

When you become self employed you currently have to register with HMRC. In return you should get the self employed equivalent of a company number perhaps with the safeguard of an industry category you can operate in. This could then be checked by any business you worked for and they would know there would be no comeback years down the line.

Ideally the newly self employed would also get support along with checks to ensure they kept correct records etc.

Why is this idea important?

Imagine, I am unemployed but want to work so I decide to start my own business. I don't have much money so can't incur overheads but I do have some skills so I approach some businesses and offer my services as a freelancer. I am happy to take on odd days work/projects and start building my business. Once I have some cash I can invest and expand but hang on there is a problem, no one will give me any work even though they want to? Why, because:

  • HMRC might class me as an employee and want the business to operate PAYE, leaving the business with a large future potential liability
  • As a new business it is a struggle to prove that you should actually be treated as self employed. I don't own lots of equipment, employ staff, work for lots of other customers (yet) etc.

A solution:

When you become self employed you currently have to register with HMRC. In return you should get the self employed equivalent of a company number perhaps with the safeguard of an industry category you can operate in. This could then be checked by any business you worked for and they would know there would be no comeback years down the line.

Ideally the newly self employed would also get support along with checks to ensure they kept correct records etc.

Whose revenue are they wasting?

 

It is time HMRC was made accountable. I wrote to Eric Pickles a while ago suggesting that, as well as caps on bonuses there should be mandatory penalties for not meeting basic job requirements, at least in the public sector. On that basis I suspect that HMRC is not fit for purpose and should be put into liquidation.

In the tax year 2008/2009 I had 18 PAYE Tax Coding Notices covering pension income from three sources. When, along the way, they eventually got it right,butthat did not stop them changing it so it was wrong again. I pay for telephone calls above my standing agreement unless Icall 01, 02 and 03 numbers. So, instead of using an 0845 I found one that avoided that but they objected in spite of the need to speak to them always being them getting it wrong. They eventually paid me £70 in compensation. However, the taxpayers pays for all this. If people are unemployable instead of putting them in public sector jobs and giving them handsome pensions at the tax payers' expense get them sweeping roads, clearing up litter or something else appropriate to their intellect.

Why is this idea important?

 

It is time HMRC was made accountable. I wrote to Eric Pickles a while ago suggesting that, as well as caps on bonuses there should be mandatory penalties for not meeting basic job requirements, at least in the public sector. On that basis I suspect that HMRC is not fit for purpose and should be put into liquidation.

In the tax year 2008/2009 I had 18 PAYE Tax Coding Notices covering pension income from three sources. When, along the way, they eventually got it right,butthat did not stop them changing it so it was wrong again. I pay for telephone calls above my standing agreement unless Icall 01, 02 and 03 numbers. So, instead of using an 0845 I found one that avoided that but they objected in spite of the need to speak to them always being them getting it wrong. They eventually paid me £70 in compensation. However, the taxpayers pays for all this. If people are unemployable instead of putting them in public sector jobs and giving them handsome pensions at the tax payers' expense get them sweeping roads, clearing up litter or something else appropriate to their intellect.

Company Payment of Tax Liability

As it now takes on average 120 days for our customers to pay us, but we have to paye PAYE & NI deductions monthly, as well as VAT quarterly, most companies with turnover under £10m who invoice rather than retail have a large cash flow problem.

 

Lets work out the yearly liability and average it out over 52 weeks and pay by d/d or s/o.

 

This will help cash flow, reduce the unpaid liablity to the IR. We also need to ensure that the IR helps companies stay afloat and not issue winding up notices. 85% of all winding up notices are generated by HMRC, which is unaccepatable. All that happens is that they put staff on the dole, which ultimately costs the government more.

Why is this idea important?

As it now takes on average 120 days for our customers to pay us, but we have to paye PAYE & NI deductions monthly, as well as VAT quarterly, most companies with turnover under £10m who invoice rather than retail have a large cash flow problem.

 

Lets work out the yearly liability and average it out over 52 weeks and pay by d/d or s/o.

 

This will help cash flow, reduce the unpaid liablity to the IR. We also need to ensure that the IR helps companies stay afloat and not issue winding up notices. 85% of all winding up notices are generated by HMRC, which is unaccepatable. All that happens is that they put staff on the dole, which ultimately costs the government more.

Review of the stamp duty land tax return form

The return form was previously a one page form and was increased to a six page form (with additional forms for particular types of transactions). A review of what information from the new forms is actually needed and used should be undertaken so as to remove the unnecessary  information (for example the email address of the solicitor acting for each party).

Why is this idea important?

The return form was previously a one page form and was increased to a six page form (with additional forms for particular types of transactions). A review of what information from the new forms is actually needed and used should be undertaken so as to remove the unnecessary  information (for example the email address of the solicitor acting for each party).

Review Stepped Stamp Duty Rates

An overhaul and review of the current stepped rates of stamp duty to a single rate for all domestic property values.

Currently a property costing £250,000 attracts stamp duty @ 1% or £2,500, if the cost rises to £255,000 stamp duty at a higher rate of 3% or £7,650 is levied  so the increase in cost to the purchaser is not £5,000 but over £10,000.

It gets worse with further stepped increases at £500,000 and £1million.

It must be possible to calculate a median percentage rate for all domestic properties over say £100,000 which would provide the same income to the Treasury and eliminate the iniquitous 'stepped' system.

Why is this idea important?

An overhaul and review of the current stepped rates of stamp duty to a single rate for all domestic property values.

Currently a property costing £250,000 attracts stamp duty @ 1% or £2,500, if the cost rises to £255,000 stamp duty at a higher rate of 3% or £7,650 is levied  so the increase in cost to the purchaser is not £5,000 but over £10,000.

It gets worse with further stepped increases at £500,000 and £1million.

It must be possible to calculate a median percentage rate for all domestic properties over say £100,000 which would provide the same income to the Treasury and eliminate the iniquitous 'stepped' system.

No need to register Death-in-Service schemes with Customs & Revenue

Pointless bureacracy – why do we have to register this scheme with Customs & Revenue. We did years ago but now required to give new insurance company a PSTR number as our old SF number was not acceptable. Had to obtain this new number online. Therefore had to pre register to obtain a Scheme ID number. This was then sent to us in the post. Once received then had to register and was given a Government Gateway ID number – again sent in post. Finally registered using these to then obtain the PSTR number that we then passed on to the Insurance company.

Quite what all this was for – i don't know and cannot see a purpose. In simply terms, we insure staff, if they die the insurer pays out to us as trustees and we pass on to the individuals elected beneficiary. Easy – why then this need for silly numbers?

Why is this idea important?

Pointless bureacracy – why do we have to register this scheme with Customs & Revenue. We did years ago but now required to give new insurance company a PSTR number as our old SF number was not acceptable. Had to obtain this new number online. Therefore had to pre register to obtain a Scheme ID number. This was then sent to us in the post. Once received then had to register and was given a Government Gateway ID number – again sent in post. Finally registered using these to then obtain the PSTR number that we then passed on to the Insurance company.

Quite what all this was for – i don't know and cannot see a purpose. In simply terms, we insure staff, if they die the insurer pays out to us as trustees and we pass on to the individuals elected beneficiary. Easy – why then this need for silly numbers?

stop forcing companies to do returns on line

Please stop forcing businesses to complete returns on line. I live in the sticks with constant problems with my broadband that result in my being kicked out of my connection. It is very frustrating when you have a deadline and are unable to get through. It is meant to make life easier but in fact it does not for the small businessman trying to get sales, not complete online paper returns. This is not the way to improve business turnover.

Why is this idea important?

Please stop forcing businesses to complete returns on line. I live in the sticks with constant problems with my broadband that result in my being kicked out of my connection. It is very frustrating when you have a deadline and are unable to get through. It is meant to make life easier but in fact it does not for the small businessman trying to get sales, not complete online paper returns. This is not the way to improve business turnover.

Tax Relief for Exporters

Export is the real life blood of this country. Exporters should be encoraged, however government red tape , currency exchange charges by the blood sucking banks, high extra insurance charges make exporting more expensive than not exporting. The government should  give extra tax relief to exporters through a new low level of corporation tax or lower level of CGT to encorage exporting. Lower tax on exporters would also go some way to offsetting the high costs of doing buisness in this country which has caused many companies to go "offshore". It would increase the number of private jobs  and also help with the balance of trade. I read somewhere that £1 generated by exports is worth up to 20x that generated by non exporters… Our taxation should reflect this. Also export rules and paper work should be made FREELY available to exporters. It is sheer madness that exporters have to pay for documentation here that is freely avalable in other countries.

Why is this idea important?

Export is the real life blood of this country. Exporters should be encoraged, however government red tape , currency exchange charges by the blood sucking banks, high extra insurance charges make exporting more expensive than not exporting. The government should  give extra tax relief to exporters through a new low level of corporation tax or lower level of CGT to encorage exporting. Lower tax on exporters would also go some way to offsetting the high costs of doing buisness in this country which has caused many companies to go "offshore". It would increase the number of private jobs  and also help with the balance of trade. I read somewhere that £1 generated by exports is worth up to 20x that generated by non exporters… Our taxation should reflect this. Also export rules and paper work should be made FREELY available to exporters. It is sheer madness that exporters have to pay for documentation here that is freely avalable in other countries.

Make Money Laundering Regs Apply to Ex-(prime) Ministers

It seems to be generally accepted that ex-Prime Ministers become extremely (in some cases obscenely) rich.

Not just Blair and Thatcher- John Major (from a very poor background) acquired a large holding in Carlyle Group after leaving office. How and why?

Ex-ministers should be required to declare and prove that all substantial receipts and capital holdings were not acquired as a result of actions (favours) carried out during their period of office.

Failure to do so should result in forfeiture of the funds to HM Treasury

Why is this idea important?

It seems to be generally accepted that ex-Prime Ministers become extremely (in some cases obscenely) rich.

Not just Blair and Thatcher- John Major (from a very poor background) acquired a large holding in Carlyle Group after leaving office. How and why?

Ex-ministers should be required to declare and prove that all substantial receipts and capital holdings were not acquired as a result of actions (favours) carried out during their period of office.

Failure to do so should result in forfeiture of the funds to HM Treasury

Free Pensions for Directors

Remove the National Insurance Legislation that allows Directors of companies to set their salary between the two lower National Insurance Limits and pay no National Insurance yet still claim a state pension.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the National Insurance Legislation that allows Directors of companies to set their salary between the two lower National Insurance Limits and pay no National Insurance yet still claim a state pension.

Stamp Duty

What the hell is this for?  I never got a 'stamp' everytime I bought a house!!  Taxes should be paid which benefit the people e.g money goes to education, health and law & order – this is just another money spinner with no reason or substance!!!

Why is this idea important?

What the hell is this for?  I never got a 'stamp' everytime I bought a house!!  Taxes should be paid which benefit the people e.g money goes to education, health and law & order – this is just another money spinner with no reason or substance!!!