MORE TIME is required to assess the impact of HM Revenue & Customs' pilot programme of enquiry centre closures in the north-east of England before it is rolled out nationally, according to the CIoT's Low Income Tax Reform Group (LITRG).
LITRG chairman Anthony Thomas warned that HMRC needs to be "clear that the change does not disadvantage vulnerable taxpayers".
"We are not convinced that a five month trial, followed by a two month evaluation period, is sufficient time to be sure that this will not be the case," he said.
In March, the taxman said it intended to close down all 281 enquiry centres, which give face-to-face advice to almost two-and-a-half million taxpayers per year.
In its place, a "flexible" telephone service and provision for visits to "a range of convenient locations" is to be introduced.
The move will affect 1,300 jobs, although it is expected many of those will be redeployed within the department. Taxpayers, HMRC said, will save around £12m in time and travel costs, while it claims the service will be £13m cheaper to run than it is currently.
The 13 closures in the north east are to be completed by 31 October, with national closures set to commence from February 2014 provided the results are positive.
The CIoT, along with the ICAEW, is supportive of a more efficient HMRC, but expressed disappointment that the deadline for responses to the consultation is too close to the commencement of the pilot closure, meaning there may not be enough time to incorporate feedback into a new model.
"We encourage HMRC to analyse their call handling strategy to ensure that taxpayers who may previously have visited an enquiry centre can have quick and easy access to the new service. In addition, helpline advisers must be trained to the highest degree not only in soft skills but also on the technical side to reduce ‘bouncing around' of calls and back office referrals," Thomas said.
A spokesperson for HMRC said: "We are working closely with partners in the pilot area and nationally to get this service right for our customers. Through their feedback, and our own tests, we will continue to adapt the new service over the remaining two months of the pilot. No decision will be taken to extend this service until we are sure it is the right one for our customers who need extra help."
Out of a concern over the short evaluation period in respect of the contact centre closure, we have made strong representation in the consultation response submission. We do believe that the evaluation should be extended, at least, to cover a period beyond the January 31st Self-Assessment filing peak and ideally for one whole year, to ensure that the impact on all taxpayers and claimants can be measured. We believe that HMRC has taken our point on board and that it is their intention to continue to monitor the effect of the closed centres on the taxpayers and claimants after the 31 October.
Nevertheless and quite rightly there is cause for concern. The saying “tax can be taxing” rings true for a large majority of tax payers. There has to be a decent strategy in place which ensures tax payers receive the help they need when they need it. At the moment many are sceptical.
Posted by: Brian Palmer, AAT Tax Policy Adviser , 30 Aug 2013 | 11:19
Quite why there is an insistence on the part of government to collect PAYE/NI in the current arcane expensive manner when the alternative would help everybody to save money and time, apart from a little more work from the banks and mutuals, is beyond me. Why oh why are the spending money like there was no deficit on RTI when the alternative is so obvious. what does one do with a government that says it is going to cut SME bureaucracy and expense but increases it even when there is a clear sensible alternative. I do wish they would get a grip. Let us completely remove all PAYE/NI bureaucracy for SME's (and pretty much everyone else) and go down the Income Account route.
[This comment has been moderated]
Posted by: G Stephenson, 31 Aug 2013 | 14:46
You may also like
If budgeting is to have any value at all, it needs a radical overhaul. In today's dynamic marketplace, budgeting can no longer serve as a company's only management system; it must integrate with and support dedicated strategy management systems, process improvement systems, and the like. In this paper, Professor Peter Horvath and Dr Ralf Sauter present what's wrong with the current approach to budgeting and how to fix it.
In this white paper CCH provide checklists to help accountants and finance professionals both in practice and in business examine these issues and make plans. Also includes a case study of a large commercial organisation working through the first year of mandatory iXBRL filing.