I’ve been following a thread over at AccountingWEB kicked off by Nichola Ross Martin about an article at Taxline. Nichola was interpreting material written by Robert Maas. The thrust of Nichola’s piece was that:
The Tax faculty explain that the guide is an internal HMRC document which was developed to explain to HMRC direct tax staff what they can expect from advisers – and what they should not put up with. As it is still subject to revision it is “not appropriate for publication at this stage”. It will be published eventually as part of the Enquiry Manual.
However, it seems that the guide has been thought fit for circulation to the Revenue. To make matters more confusing for “grass roots” accountants, who may be wondering what on earth is going on, the ICAEW Tax Faculty has seen, and commented on, the first couple of drafts of the guide, although as an HMRC internal document, there has been no formal consultation.
But she got it wrong. Early in the thread I asked (but wasn’t given) the URL for the original piece. Robert came back saying:
I am sad to see that I may have unwittingly stirred up a hornet’s nest. Unwittingly because I think that Nichola Ross Martin must have misread my article in Taxline. What I was trying to explain is that the HMRC Relationship Guide is an internal staff document that Revenue staff should not in fact be quoting to advisers.
Robert – you didn’t stir up the ensuing heated debate over the fairness or otherwise of taxpayer and advisor treatment. It was Nichola. Needless to say, 20+ comments were posted many lambasting HMRC behaviour. Given the article was read some 5738 times at the last count, the number of comments is a fleabite.
Nichola is a champion for the small practitioner and is a solid advocate for taxpayer rights. I have no difficulty with that. Her analysis of the Arctic Systems case was particularly helpful. But – what she fails to recognise, as did every commenter, regardless of their position, is that the profession is not just under seige from an aggressive administration or a number of badly behaved Inspectors. I’ve dealt with one or two in the past.
Until the profession as a whole wakes up to the damage wreaked on it by KPMG when it was fined $456 million for selling illegal tax schemes in the US, then it should come as no surprise that Inspectors think we’re a bunch of crooks. It’s all very well to say ‘That was the US’ but KPMG is a global brand and when crap of that sorts flies, it has a habit of sticking in all the wrong places.
Of course there are problems with certain elements within HMRC. Yes, the administrative part of the organisation is not working as well as it could. And I agree the government’s attempts to crack down on what it sees as abuses of the system appear heavy handed. And yes, it always seems to be the smaller practice that struggles the most. But there’s nothing fundamentally new about the arguments being put forward by practitioners. The fact that HMRC chose to make a draft of an internal document available to certain ICAEW members should be seen as an acknowledgment that things are not as they could be. But from ‘our’ side of the fence, the trick surely is to ensure that ‘we’ act in the most professional manner possible operating to a standard of ethics that matches the spirit of professional guidelines. Anything less is inviting trouble.
