TaxAid is a UK charity that says:
TaxAid is a UK charity providing free tax advice to people who cannot afford to pay a professional adviser. The service is independent and confidential.
Then I read what was discussed at its annual conference as reported by AccountingWEB. Candidly, attacks on corporation tax reform, discussion of what are called 'managed service companies' and analysis of how to extract dividends from small businesses are not issues that seem to have anything to do with its remit, whilst if the following is meant to be charitable, I'm French:
On tax credits.....the ideal is to be a couple with a sole income of £32,600 and three children. Once again, the Chancellor's efforts to target a group (helping to abolish child poverty) have totally backfired, because the shrewd tax credit's claimant can manage tax relief of up to 96% on pension contributions, and thanks to the £25,000 income disregard milk the system for two years.
My faith in this organisation is evaporating.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The attack on TaxAid is unfair. They provide a vital service with very little funding. Hosting conferences is a good way for them to raise funds and their profile. The fact that a speaker talks about milking the tax credit system does not mean that TaxAid would and do endorse this approach. Everyone in tax knows that the tax credit system is full of holes and must make their own decisions on whether or not they should encourage their clients to exploit those holes.
A charity may not be political.
The comments made would appear from the report quoted to have been decidedly political.
That was inappropriate.
Richard, Tim Page is right — this is unfair criticism. The quote beginning “On tax credits …” is from AccountingWeb. I was unable to attend the TaxAid conference but I have the speakers’ notes. It seems clear that the coverage of tax credits was meant to draw attention to something that every taxpayer / tax credit claimant and tax adviser is entitled to know, namely that at certain levels of income the effective rate of tax relief for pension contribution is 96 per cent. This is a direct consequence of the Government’s decision to increase the tax credits income disregard from £2,500 to £25,000 — a barmy decision if ever there was one.
Andrew
Barmy or not, the clear message that comes from the report is that decidely political comments were made at a charity sponsored event.
That is not a charitable activity. What was said appears to be the usual nonsense that many in this profession talk.
My point seems entirely appropriate. If TaxAid want to continue with their work they’d better be careful about how they do it, as is the case for all charities who wish to benefit from tax relief. Good governance requires nothing less than living by the rules of the game.
Richard
Perhaps it would help in this somewhat overheated debate for some words to be added by the person who is being (mis)quoted in the first place.
First, I believe Richard is at something of a disadvantage, not having actually been there. He did not therefore hear my introduction to the talk. In it I said that my sole intention was to analyse some of the numbers underlying the Budget and assess whether (and if so to what extent) they achieved their avowed aims. And, if any of the measures proved to have unintended consequences, to identify those consequences.
This, lest any might doubt it, is a service I would happily perform for any Budget by any Chancellor.
If Richard feels that a detailed numerical analysis of Finance Bill measures is “political”, he is of course welcome so to do.
He also appears to be basing his wrath upon Nichola Ross Martin’s brief account on Accountingweb. The choice of words there was Nichola’s, not mine and certainly not TaxAid’s.
It is a matter of cold hard fact that middle-income families are able to benefit from the Tax Credit system to a degree that the poor (ie the intended beneficiaries) can only dream of. Why, I wonder, does Richard object to my stating that fact? I’m sorry, but the reality of the event was just a molehill, not the mountain he would clearly like to make from it.
Andrew
I accept your point. And it is correct if that is as far as it went. Thank you.
But I also make the point that if the tax editor of AccountingWEB is to be believed, and if others who have sought to make comment here but have failed to do so in moderate terms are to be believed then the analysis offered at the confreence was ‘standard CPD fair’.
Read Emile Woolf in Accountancy this month to get some feel for that.
The implication is that actually comments which I would consider political were likely to have been made. And that is fine in a CPD context. But this was a charity run event. And this site is about accountability and governnace as well as tax, which some appear to be forgetting. Charities need to be very cautious when going anywhere near political comment, and standard CPD fair is very political indeed, even if accountants and tax porofesionals are blind to it. If another tax professional could report it in a way that suggested that interpretation possible, then that is of concern in this context.
That was my point. That was not a molehill. It would be a mountain if TaxAid were to lose charitable status as a result. As such the point was relevant, and appropriate. And that is all I sought to draw attention to.
I have now made this point several times, which I think sufficient.
Further comment by anyone else who has not sought to undersatnd the context of the post I made, or who has not realised what constitutes political activity in a charity context will not be accepted.
Richard
I have reflected on this overnight. It’s often a good thing to do.
I remain of the view that my comments have been misread and my repeated explanation of their governance context appears to have been ignored. So let me state simply that I have known of TaxAid since its foundation by David Brodie, with whom I am acquainted. It does good work, and when I said “My faith in this organisation is evaporating” it was no reflection upon that work, but upon the governnance structures surrounding it.
That said, on reflection I suspect I have given Andrew Meeson less credit than I should have done for the assurance he has given.
Some say I can’t apologise. Well, on this occassion I am doing just that.