This week Finance Monthly hears from Nick Williams, Head of Business Development at UK Accountants, Intuit, who discusses change management methodologies and outlines an 8-step process for accountancy firms to apply Dr John P. Kotter of Harvard Business School’s methodology to ensure a smooth transition to Making Tax Digital.

These are changing times in the UK's accounting industry. Making Tax Digital (MTD) is the biggest overhaul to the taxation system in decades, and firms are not only adopting new ways of working, but they are completely re-thinking business models to meet the evolving needs of their small business clients.

The shift to digital accounting introduces new opportunities for accountants to take on more of a financial advisory role, providing real-time insights and strategic guidance to grow their clients’ businesses. However, while the shift to digital accounting is part of a wider push to digital in nearly all aspects of both our business and personal lives, the enormity of it cannot be underestimated. To ensure a smooth transition for their practice and their clients, accountants would do well to approach it in the same way as any other change management programme.

One of the most well-known change management methodologies is by Dr John P. Kotter of Harvard Business School, who observed countless leaders and businesses as they were trying to transform and execute their strategies, and developed the 8-Step Process for leading change. Here’s how accountancy firms can apply the same methodology to ensure a smooth transition:

1. Establish a Sense of Urgency: For months – years perhaps – we’ve been saying “it’s not too late to be early” to prepare for MTD. Communicate the message internally and externally that now it is in fact is a bit too late to be early. It really is time to move forward with cloud-based accounting to avoid a last-minute panic when deadlines approach.
2. Create the Guiding Coalition: Having dedicated “experts” flying the flag for digital accounting will help to ensure broader education among all employees on the forthcoming regulations. Start a process to train fee earners on your preferred cloud software and have "champions" trained as soon as possible.
3. Develop a Vision and Strategy: Think about how you can use MTD to seize new market segments or opportunities. For example, there are an estimated 1.75 million landlords in the UK, and all those earning more than £10,000 from property income will be liable for Making Tax Digital. For some, recording transactions online will be a first, and they will likely seek counsel from dedicated experts. Be one step ahead by positioning yourself as a future-ready firm.
4. Communicate the Change Vision: Once employees are up to speed on the changes, running a Making Tax Digital marketing campaign with clients is critical. Telephone calls, emails, client letters and even social media marketing will help to communicate these changes, and position your practice as a firm that is there for its clients every step of the way.
5. Empower Employees for Broad-Based Action: Some firms and their clients will be new to digital accounting; however, employees should be given freedom to experiment with different ways of working. Periods of change are frequently followed by periods of innovation, so try not to hamper any enthusiasm as employees “test and learn” to drive better outcomes for their clients.
6. Generate Short-Term Wins: Employees and clients will be more receptive to digital accounting if they see immediate benefits. Highlighting the time saved from less manual entry and the benefits gained from automation, for example, can help staff members see the potential of their roles to evolve from keeper of historical records to real-time financial advisor.
7. Consolidate Gains and Produce More Change: Use data to establish what changes have driven the best rewards for clients and share best practices across the business.
8. Anchor New Approaches in the Culture: Reward employees who share examples of how they have used digital accounting to achieve a better outcome, and encourage sharing, feedback and open discussion as you adopt new technologies to take your practice to the future.

By adopting a change management mindset, firms can ensure they stay ahead of the curve and have a business set up for long-term success.

On 6 April 2017, a new set of IR35 rules came into force for public bodies. Essentially, HMRC was no longer going to allow the public sector to take contractors operating through Limited Companies at their word that they were playing fair with employment status law. Bradley Post, Managing Director at Rift Tax Refunds explains for Finance Monthly.

Under the new rules, it's either the public body itself that has to make the IR35 decision, or the agency involved if there is one. If a public body decides that IR35 applies, then the body itself starts taking tax and National Insurance payments out of the contractor's pay, as they would for any employee.

HMRC created a called Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) to help with making these assessments simple and accurate. However, a year later we’re seeing complaints from contractors that they’ve been wrongly classified and so are being over taxed.

Recent figures obtained under FOI show 54% of CEST results say IR35 doesn't apply, meaning that that under the terms of the working relationship the contractor should be classified as an employee. Hirers, though, simply aren't trusting CEST's judgements. Worse still, a lot of them aren't even trying to use it, instead making blanket decisions to class everyone as an employee, with many public bodies saying they felt they hadn't had enough preparation time or support to take on their new legal responsibilities.

TfL, for instance, reacted by banning off-payroll payments to Personal Service Companies altogether. Worse still, there's plenty of evidence of blanket judgements being made. Essentially, public bodies are simply assuming IR35 applies in all cases, hence the thousands of contractors being overtaxed. Many contractors are raising their rates to cover the extra tax they're paying. Others have simply refused to take on public sector work, leading to project delays or outright cancellations.

Crucially, only about half of assessments have gone through any compliance tests at all. In fact, CEST was a factor in just 24% of assessments made - partly because of blanket decisions and partly because the tool wasn't ready when the assessments took place. In an environment that relies on voluntary compliance, what's developing is a shocking lack of trust.

In reaction to this a number of contractor websites are now sharing information on “how to pass the IR35 check” using the CEST tool, but “contriving a pass” is a dangerous route to go down and won’t protect an individual from a status challenges if HMRC believes an individual deliberately answered questions incorrectly.

Honestly, from HMRC's point of view, the CEST roll-out has been pretty much a success. Of course, the only way they seem to measure that is in how much additional revenue it pulls in. The thing is, the raw numbers don't tell the full story here. Since wrongly overtaxing contractors has the same effect, it's thin evidence at best that actual compliance is being boosted.

While tax revenue has risen, the door's been opened on a whole new kind of non-compliance – this time on the part of hirers. Meanwhile, HMRC's upbeat outlook has a lot of people more worried than ever about a private sector roll-out – perhaps as soon as 2019. If that did happen, it could mean some upheaval for contracts and projects already in progress. Judging from the continuing turmoil in the public sector, it's going to take careful consideration and planning to avoid falling down the same rabbit-hole. At the same time, private organisations will face the same legal threats and consequences as public bodies.

If the new system hits the private sector as many expect, it'll take effective guidance and comprehensive support from advisers to defuse the ticking IR35 timebomb.

Various expert Partners at Crowe Clark Whitehill, a leading audit, tax and advisory firm, share their expectations below ahead of the UK Chancellor Phillip Hammond's Spring Statement tomorrow.

Dinesh Jangra, Partner, Head of Global Mobility Solutions, calls for measures to help the UK retain and attract talent and investment: “Let there be no doubt, UK PLC will benefit immensely from the world’s best talent being here. The question is what role can the UK tax system play in encouraging this?

Regardless of what is announced in the Spring Statement, Brexit looming in the background and this is causing concerns around the UK’s attractiveness for talent and investment. With that in mind, I would like to see the UK tax system in the area of mobility (expatriate tax breaks) being reviewed to enhance UK attractiveness. The tax effectiveness of non-domicile status has been eroded over time and while we have overseas workday relief and temporary workplace relief, I question if they are enough to continue to attract the best talent to the UK. Often, employers take on the UK income taxes due in respect of employees under tax equalisation arrangements so more UK tax breaks can reduce overall employer tax costs.”

Stacy Eden, Head of Property and Construction, calls for a stamp duty cut and a freeing up of Green Belt land to reinvigorate housebuilding: “An SDLT reduction would free-up liquidity in the market, which will ultimately increase housing transactions and sales, which are currently at extremely low levels. We may even find that it raises more money. There is a broader concern that our tax system is not favourable to property investors and developers, which is not surprising given we have one of the highest property taxes amongst OECD countries.”

“I’m looking out for the Chancellor’s approach to simplifying the planning process. He could reinvigorate UK housebuilding by freeing up more areas of Green Belt land. Investing in planning departments to try and get closer to housebuilding targets is of great importance. We are currently well short of targets and this is contributing to higher house prices in certain areas.”

Rob Marchant, VAT Partner, calls for VAT reform to stimulate the residential build-to-rent market: “It may be an ambitious ask, but I would like VAT changes to encourage the residential build-to-rent market. If rental income were treated as zero-rated rather than VAT exempt, it would allow landlords to reclaim VAT on running, management and repair costs.”

Matteo Timpani, Partner, Corporate Finance, calls for Entrepreneurs Relief to be expanded: “I would like to see the government retain and even expand the reach of Entrepreneurs’ Relief (ER) and other tax reliefs, aimed at rewarding enterprise for UK entrepreneurs.

Recent soundings around restrictions to Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) relief and other reliefs designed to foster growth in the UK economy can cause uncertainty among a community of risk accepting entrepreneurs, the success of which, in the mid-market, drives our economy.

The government should be careful not to underestimate how much of an incentive ER is for business owners to drive growth and ultimately create wealth and jobs for the UK economy as a whole.”

Johnathan Dudley, Partner, Head of Manufacturing, calls for clarity around pensions for SMEs: “With Brexit on the horizon and the possibility of yet another general election, what businesses really need is a period of stability and for politicians to provide some certainty.

Provided this ‘certainty’ is forthcoming, I would expect to see further changes to pensions provisions, aid for businesses to strengthen their international trade capabilities and the tightening of provisions to IR35 and tax evasion rules around employment and self-employment.

Many SMEs have invested time and effort into dealing with pension auto-enrolment duties and a relief for these businesses around payroll provision would be welcomed and well deserved.”

Caroline Harwood, Partner, Head of Share Plans and Reward, calls for clarity about remuneration in light of the Rangers EBT case: “During 2017 we saw the introduction of yet more measures to tackle remuneration structures designed to avoid tax, including a charge on all outstanding ‘disguised remuneration loans’ made to employees by Employee Benefit Trusts (EBT) or other third parties, as well as the new ‘close company gateway’.

The Supreme Court decision to favour HMRC in the ‘big tax case’ against Rangers FC brought the ‘redirection principle’ into the foreground, in ruling that payments via EBTs qualified as taxable income. Initially, the interaction between this new case law, the disguised remuneration rules and arranging such salary sacrifice into a pension scheme, was unclear.

HMRC have made statements as to how they expect these rules to interact in certain cases in the future, but formal clarification in the Spring Statement would be welcomed.”

Bitcoin is becoming a pretty normal currency in transactions worldwide, and it hasn’t failed to infiltrate paychecks either. So, if a salary is paid in part or in full in bitcoin, how is the income taxed? And how is tax applied to transactions anyway? Fiona Cincotta, Senior Market Analyst at City Index, clarifies the matter for Finance Monthly.

Bitcoin is a virtual currency, that can be generated by mining or bought using cash, credit card or a paypal account. Bitcoin began in 2009. At the start, one of the advantages of bitcoin was the fact that is wasn’t regulated and could be used in transactions to avoid tax obligations. However, tax authorities caught on and since then tax authorities across the globe have been trying to introduce and advance regulation on the bitcoin.

Whilst the cryptocurrencies exist on a global network, tax regulations in general differ for each country around the world. However, broadly speaking most tax authorities are on the same page when it comes to the treatment of the bitcoin.

As a general rule, buying a bitcoin anywhere in the world is not a taxable operation in itself. However, taxes are likely to occur when you sell that bitcoin, or possibly spend the bitcoin, and make a profit in the process.

How much you would be taxed on the transaction would then depend on several factors:

• The amount of gains;
• How long you were holding the currency for;
• If the country in question has capital gains tax.

Again, generally speaking, most countries do not consider virtual currencies to be “currencies” from a tax point of view. Instead they are treated as a property or capital asset. This means that any gains are taxed as capital gains in the year that they are realised.

As with property, capital gains tax is liable on profits, meanwhile should an investor realise a loss from a bitcoin transaction, the investor would be able to deduct any losses and therefore reduce the tax bill.

Realization happens when the bitcoin is exchanged for any other type of other property. This could be cash, services or products. Essentially almost any transaction which involves the bitcoin is in fact a realisation event and therefore gains are taxable. The following transactions could be taxable events:

• Selling a personally mined bitcoin to a third party;
• Selling bitcoins bought from someone to a third party;
• Using personally mined bitcoins to buy goods or services;
• Using bitcoins bought from someone to buy goods or services.

Scenarios which involve mining of bitcoin followed by either selling or exchanging for goods or services afterwards, will mean that the value received for the bitcoin is taxed as personal or business income, after subtracting any expenses incurred from mining eg cost electricity.

Meanwhile the other two examples, taker the bitcoin as an investment asset. Gain are taxed regardless whether the bitcoin was exchanged for money or goods or services. To cement this point let’s consider the following example. Should you own bitcoins that have increased in value, it is impossible to use them with realising a gain. Using the bitcoin to purchase a service or good, for example, is considered to be two transactions. One, selling out or realising the gain on the bitcoin and the second, being the purchase of the service or product. Few tax authorities would allow such a blatant loophole, as to not tax the transaction and ascension of wealth.

However, the implication of this is that every transaction involving the bitcoin is taxable. This in itself raises questions over the effectiveness of bitcoin as a medium of exchange, if the user has to calculate the tax liability after every transaction. So, the possibility now exists that over taxation of crypto currencies, could lead to their death.

As mentioned at the beginning tax implications can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The IRS in the US has a fairly standard approach to bitcoin taxation. The UK’s HMRC takes a more personalised approach and has has specifically said that it considers tax on bitcoins on a case by case basis. Whilst such a personalised approach is fine now, should the bitcoin increase in popularity HMRC may find its resources strained.

HMRC has come under intense pressure to show it can be tough on tax evasion. Here are 10 ways, some high-tech, some very traditional, that HMRC can use to check if you are cheating.

Written by Kamlesh Chauhan, Senior VAT Manager at haysmacintyre

Most businesses in the financial sector are not entitled to reclaim the full amount of VAT that they incur on costs because they are partly exempt for VAT purposes. This is a complex area of VAT, and as the VAT year end approaches for most, now is a good opportunity to take stock of your VAT position. We often find many businesses are not minimising their VAT costs effectively, and are unaware of the requirements around their VAT year end (which is usually March, April, or May).

To complicate matters, rules governing VAT are continually changing due to new legislation, updates in HMRC’s guidance, and various case law precedents released over time. In the current climate, with the need to increase tax revenues, the corporate finance sector is an area that could easily be targeted by HMRC. A simple error, such as treating the VAT treatment of a transaction incorrectly can have knock on effects on your VAT recovery and your annual adjustment figures, leading to a significant amount of VAT being at stake, especially if the errors occur consistently over time as HMRC can assess going back for a four-year period.

For those that receive exempt income, (typically firms that arrange corporate transactions such as M&A activity, debt restructuring, divestments, IPOs or debt and equity private placements) an annual adjustment must be carried out at the end of each VAT year. This requires you to apply the normal VAT recovery method using annual data, rather than on a quarter-by-quarter basis. The difference between what can be reclaimed on an annual basis, compared to with what was claimable in the individual VAT return periods, then forms the annual adjustment which may be in your favour.

Many businesses simply fail to carry out an annual adjustment, or just get the calculations wrong which can lead to being penalised by HMRC, so it’s important to check you are doing it correctly – seeking professional help will of course aid this. It is crucial that you have applied an annual adjustment for each of the last four years.

 If you are partly exempt there is an additional adjustment required for the VAT recovery claimed on expenditure relating to capital assets, including any commercial property (purchase and/or refurbishment) costing over £250,000 and computer hardware costing over £50,000. This is dependent on the change in the annual adjustment recovery rate, from the rate applied to the original year of purchase, and use of the asset to the rate calculated in each subsequent adjustment year for a period of 10 years (an adjustment period of 10 years is applied for all commercial property capital assets). If an asset is disposed of within the 10-year adjustment period, the remaining periods will be calculated based on the VAT treatment applied to the disposal.

In terms of the implications for non-compliance (whether intentional or not), HMRC will seek to charge penalties and interest. The amount will range from 15% to 30% of the VAT owed for a “careless” error identified by HMRC. Deliberate or concealed errors will attract even higher penalties. The actual penalty amount is subject to HMRC’s assessment of whether the business took “reasonable care” or not in making the error.

It is worth considering applying for the use of a special method of partial exemption. For most businesses in the financial services sector, this needs to be agreed in writing with HMRC, otherwise a method based on turnover must be applied. A more beneficial method can be based on the number of projects or transactions being worked on, or based on a sectorised approach with different methods for VAT recovery in each part of the business. Although it can be difficult to agree the method the benefits can be significant. For those with a special method already in place, it is always worth reviewing whether it is still reasonable for the business as this may have been agreed with HMRC some time ago, after which business operations have changed.

It is crucial to keep on top of your VAT position, with regular annual reviews. Failing to do so can leave the business at a disadvantage. We would encourage all partly exempt businesses to seek specialist advice to ensure that they not only avoid the pitfalls, but also take advantage of potential improvements to their VAT recovery position. Regular reviewing of your VAT position by external advisers also demonstrates, if any errors do arise, that “reasonable care” is being taken by the business, which will help mitigate and reduce any penalties that HMRC may seek to apply.

Kamlesh Chauhan is a senior VAT manager at haysmacintyre. He can be contacted on +44 20 7969 5584 or by email: kchauhan@haysmacintyre.com.

“The recent amendment to the UK Finance Bill 2016 to include enabling legislation that would require companies to publish a ‘country-by-country report’ (CbCR), showing where they paid their taxes and earned their revenues, is nothing more than an ineffectual naming and shaming exercise,” says Miles Dean, Managing Partner, Milestone International Tax.

“If countries do adopt CbCR, what purpose does it serve? It would show that countries like Luxembourg and Ireland aren't interested in Corporation Tax - they want bums on seats; they want jobs that produce income, that generates income tax receipts, and that gives rise to consumption, thus producing VAT receipts. This begs the question: is Corporation Tax necessary? Is it the solution, or is there an alternative? Maybe Ireland and Luxembourg are ahead of the curve on this one.

“What gets missed in all of this brouhaha is the fact that whatever tax is suffered by a multinational enterprise (MNE) is ultimately passed on to the consumer: Vodafone, Starbucks, Amazon, Boots, Shell, Apple etc., would simply increase the price of their product to protect their bottom line.

“What CbCR would undoubtedly show up is that the US tax system is to blame for much of the corporate tax ‘abuse’. An outdated, not fit for purpose Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) regime, coupled with the ‘Check the Box’ election, no exemption for foreign dividends, and pliant treaty partners like Luxembourg and Ireland (who can't compete unless they drop their Corporation Tax aspirations), and you have the perfect (tax) storm: very low effective corporate tax rate and long term tax deferral (there being no incentive for the likes of Apple to repatriate their profits to the US).

“The UK and other countries can bleat about how unfair it is that Ireland and Luxembourg are gaming the system, but HMRC could have policed its treaty network better, including invoking anti-abuse provisions in its treaties (Limitation on Benefits).

“Earlier this week Caroline Flint MP said: ‘Today is a victory for fairer taxation. A victory for openness, and a clear message to those global corporations that shift profits to low tax havens, that we expect them to play by the same rules as every other business.’”

“But which UK MNE’s is she concerned about? She probably can’t name one UK MNE that she thinks these new rules will apply to or affect. The simple reason for this is that it is US MNE’s and their legitimate tax planning (which they have employed in reaction to the laws set down by their legislature), that is the focus of most attention, and which has skewed the debate. There is no political will in the US to change the status quo, nor is there any evidence that the US will kowtow to the OECD. So the campaigners and MP’s can holler all they like, but CbCR isn’t going to change a great deal.

“The other problem is that the expectations of the likes of Flint will never be met – to suggest a domestic company is the same as a MNE is Alice in Wonderland stuff – either genuinely stupid or wilfully blind. MNE’s are hugely complex enterprises and, like it or not, have the ability to locate operations, risks, staff, manufacturing, etc. wherever they like and wherever they can get the best deal. Period. That’s life and that’s choice. What the campaigners really want is to remove choice.”

(Source: Miles Dean, Managing Partner, Milestone International Tax)