|
Oh and Don’t Forget !! Just what does HMRC think that Payroll Staff do all day? 
We have been told that where the National Insurance Number of an Employee is not know, the Payroll system should use “01/01/1901” on Forms P14. OK, so we go through the Payroll Database, changing the unknown Dates of Birth, to this date. This means that the Forms P14 will be accepted electronically. Then HMRC advise that for In Year Forms, such as P46's, they are thinking of insisting on Date of Birth information - BUT where we do not know the NI Number we MUST NOT use the date that HMRC have suggested is used on Forms P14, we have to use another date. So now we are expected to go through the database again and change the date from “01/01/1901” to something else. What is their problem? Why when an Employer doesn’t know an Employee’s Date of Birth, do we have to keep changing the information on our Payroll Databases? We have heard from some sources that the reason that HMRC does not want to use "01/01/1901" on In Year PAYE forms, is that such a Date of Birth would cause the HMRC Computers to assume that this was the Individuals actual Date of Birth and in those situations where there was no record of any National Insurance Pension, HMRC would issue letters etc. to the person. Not exactley what anyone would want? Is it an unreasonable to ask HMRC for a Date of Birth which would suit purposes for ALL PAYE Forms and which we could leave in place on our Payroll databases? It is important to "work with Customers" and "consult", but this doesn't seem to be happening? Let us know what you think?
The statement would also appear to highlight some disjointed thinking within HMRC since what is implied in the Web Statement is that the delay in receiving a Penalty Notice may provide legitimate grounds for a successful Appeal. If this is the case, why did HMRC not use this logic when it issued the PAYE Penalty Notices recently? Can it be correct that in some instances HMRC delay is a “reasonable excuse”, but on in other instances it is not? Can it be correct that the decision as to differentiation between these situations is only allowed by HMRC? HMRC would seem to alienating not only their Customers but also very many of their staff and this is resulting in many more off the record conversations in local hostelries than has been common for many years. These conversations are indicating that there is a developing crisis within the HMRC organisation, which is not entirely due to the merger of Customs and Revenue. In a recent example of Hostelry Chat, we were advised that there are several other instances of HMRC having a “late issue” situation, in particular with Self Assessment Statements for 2005/2006. All in all the Senior Management would seem to have lost the confidence of many of their staff, a situation which does not bode well for Customer Care? AND THERE’S MOREAnother STUNNING SUCCESS for HMRC?
Some may be aware that HMRC has implemented a new system for dealing with the Construction Industry System. Now this system has been delayed for a year, and one could reasonably assume that during the years delay there was plenty of time to ensure that the new system was comprehensively tested. Unfortunately this does not appear to have been the case. Unsurprisingly and like many other HMRC’s initiatives, many Employers organisations and Accountants are more than a little annoyed. Nichola Ross Martin, from the AccountingWeb wrote, “Despite the fact that implementation of the new CIS scheme was set back a year, a known defect in computer programming which has been carried over from PAYE online has still not been resolved for the launch.” She went on to say “Some agents cannot commence the authorisation process online because of a fundamental programming problem. This defect affects the online authorisation tool and means that the system cannot cope if an employer’s reference starts with a zero.” Ms. Martin then asked HMRC when this problem would be solved and apparently the answer from HMRC “By the summer”. Hardly a confidence building statement?Ms. Martin continued, “There has been widespread complaints that there are still unacceptable delays with FBI-2 authorisations, but HMRC appears in total denial about these delays”. A spokesman from HMRC apparently told Ms. Martin, “Authorisations should take just a matter of days”. However current indications from those sending Forms FBI-2 to HMRC are that it is more likely to be a matter of weeks. Perhaps of more concern is that some also claim that these delays are sometimes so long that the Authorisation process has to be repeated as PINs arrive too late to be activitated in time. Ms. Martin continued “Whilst many may sympathise with HMRC over its computer problems, a programming problem that has dragged on and on hardly indicative of a quality system, and may call into question the fundamentals of its design. Delays in authorisations are a complete nightmare, but at least once they are all redone that is it, unless of course gremlins get into the system and the 64-8 goes awol.” An explanation of what HMRC believes is the situation can be found on their Website at the following location: http://www.payrollchat.com/http:/www.hmrc.gov.uk/new-cis/agents-cis-online.htm Yet again the question has to be asked, do individuals within HMRC actually know what they are doing and perhaps more importantly, when mistakes are made, does any Individual in HMRC take responsibility or are any lessons learnt? Any one had issues with Authorisations and the FBI-2 procedure? Now is the time to let us know. |
Electronic Filing 
