Gov.UK Verify decommissioned

[Lootman]

I do not click on links that are unknown to me. But a scan is essentially an electronic image of a paper document. It provides a computer record of a paper document, enabling that physical document to be destroyed if necessary.

However ipso facto it does not populate the individual fields in a database in the way that an electronic submission does.

As I said a former HMRC employee explained this to me and it makes perfect sense. They would prefer to be able to easily cross-check your data. Whether you have the same goal is another matter.

I'd be massively surprised if all the data in a paper submission doesn't get added to the same database that electronic submissions go into. Whether this is automated or manual, or a combination of both, it's still a pretty trivial task.

Did your acquaintance definitively state this doesn't happen?

Yes, nowadays a scan would likely involve using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to read the individual letters and numbers entered on the paper form which can then be input into the same database that an online form would put the entered data. Occasional manual intervention might be required if the software cannot distinguish the character but such systems have vastly improved over time and fully manual entry would usually only be required for more unstructured documents with handwritten cursive content.

Re Scott's question my accountant told me that with paper returns only some of the data is populated, whereas with online returns it is all populated.

OCR might have improved since then and so there may be more data populated for paper returns now. But it can never be 100%, and OCR interpretation will surely lead to more errors and more manual intervention. There is a reason the taxman wants you to file online but whether it is in your interests to do so is another matter.

[mc2fool]

I do not click on links that are unknown to me. But a scan is essentially an electronic image of a paper document. It provides a computer record of a paper document, enabling that physical document to be destroyed if necessary.

However ipso facto it does not populate the individual fields in a database in the way that an electronic submission does.

As I said a former HMRC employee explained this to me and it makes perfect sense. They would prefer to be able to easily cross-check your data. Whether you have the same goal is another matter.

I'd be massively surprised if all the data in a paper submission doesn't get added to the same database that electronic submissions go into. Whether this is automated or manual, or a combination of both, it's still a pretty trivial task.

Did your acquaintance definitively state this doesn't happen?

Scott.

Yes, nowadays a scan would likely involve using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to read the individual letters and numbers entered on the paper form which can then be input into the same database that an online form would put the entered data. Occasional manual intervention might be required if the software cannot distinguish the character but such systems have vastly improved over time and fully manual entry would usually only be required for more unstructured documents with handwritten cursive content.

Yes, according to https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-ans ... tax-return, "Short Tax Returns are specifically designed to be scanned in via OCR - optical character recognition" and that was in 2008, so I think it's a fair assumption that now all paper returns, short and long, are automatically OCR'd and their data added to the same database as the rest, and put through the same checks.

[swill453]

Re Scott's question my accountant told me that with paper returns only some of the data is populated, whereas with online returns it is all populated.

OCR might have improved since then and so there may be more data populated for paper returns now. But it can never be 100%, and OCR interpretation will surely lead to more errors and more manual intervention. There is a reason the taxman wants you to file online but whether it is in your interests to do so is another matter.

I obviously don't know for sure, but I'd think both your accountants view and your opinion of OCR interpretation are outdated.

Scanning, OCRing and manual checking of a tax return is very trivial, especially given the number involved these days. The advantage of having all the information in the same database as online submissions is huge by comparison.

Wouldn't you expect to be able to phone any HMRC office and for the person to be able to instantly look up what value you entered in field 11.6 of your return? (And not by looking at an image of your paper form )

Scott.

[Lootman]

Re Scott's question my accountant told me that with paper returns only some of the data is populated, whereas with online returns it is all populated.

OCR might have improved since then and so there may be more data populated for paper returns now. But it can never be 100%, and OCR interpretation will surely lead to more errors and more manual intervention. There is a reason the taxman wants you to file online but whether it is in your interests to do so is another matter.

I obviously don't know for sure, but I'd think both your accountants view and your opinion of OCR interpretation are outdated.

Scanning, OCRing and manual checking of a tax return is very trivial, especially given the number involved these days. The advantage of having all the information in the same database as online submissions is huge by comparison.

Wouldn't you expect to be able to phone any HMRC office and for the person to be able to instantly look up what value you entered in field 11.6 of your return? (And not by looking at an image of your paper form )

It is possible that my accountant's information is out of date, since it is a few years since he worked for the taxman. But the fact that he recommends all his clients do paper returns is interesting nonetheless.

I never phone any HMRC office. Back in the day when they had local offices I would sometimes stop by to take care of something. But I have not needed to contact HMRC is well over a decade now. My accountant would do that for me if needed - apparently there is a special number for tax preparers that gets a faster response than you or me ringing them.

[paul]

Broadly, the same rules apply regardless of the capture/submission channel, and the "box numbers" /what's captures are in effect identical (unless it's a short tax return).
The differences are typically due to whats possible e.g. online submissions using HMRC software can be pre-populated with some information where possible. In effect, this doesn't mean you are providing more data vs paper, HMRC already knows it and is trying to be helpful by pre-populating.

In terms of the back office, the same rules are applied regardless of how it's received. Any suggestion that filing on paper means HMRC pay less attention feels are little risky:
- regardless of how you send it, the tax legislation is the same
- the data quality of online submissions is higher as rules are applied in the software first and also at the point of submitting, whereas errors found with captured paper returns whether OCR for keyed will not be allowed to pass through as a success (i.e. it may be MORE likely to involve a human looking into your affairs and ask questions)
- all successful returns regardless of channel end up in the same place and then HMRC can look at them all at once. However, for example, they may choose to run campaigns to scan the data looking for certain types of behaviour (e.g. it might seek to identify those who file a return on paper and exhibit behaviours warranting a further look!)

[Lootman]

they may choose to run campaigns to scan the data looking for certain types of behaviour (e.g. it might seek to identify those who file a return on paper and exhibit behaviours warranting a further look!)

I hope you are not suggesting that filing a paper return is somehow deemed to be more worth scrutinising than others?

Isn't it more likely to just be older taxpayers who are not as technologically savvy?

[paul]

they may choose to run campaigns to scan the data looking for certain types of behaviour (e.g. it might seek to identify those who file a return on paper and exhibit behaviours warranting a further look!)

I hope you are not suggesting that filing a paper return is somehow deemed to be more worth scrutinising than others?

Isn't it more likely to just be older taxpayers who are not as technologically savvy?

I'm not suggesting either way.
What I am saying is that HMRC could focus on paper returns if they thought it was worthwhile focussing on it.
As I said above, the data quality of electronically received return is higher (that was one of the key aims of moving people online) so one might argue they have "less" problems.
All returns are equal, but it's good practice for any organisation to identify where user exploits/user errors are occurring and then try and find them in the data they hold. This inevitably means HMRC identify a set of characteristics to focus on ....which could be associated with paper, with a particular piece of software, with a particular type of relief claim or any other criteria they deem fit.
The one criteria that is probably much less relevant is probably age of taxpayer (unless it identified a particular relief that was age related and was being abused !)

[Lootman]

All returns are equal, but it's good practice for any organisation to identify where user exploits/user errors are occurring and then try and find them in the data they hold. This inevitably means HMRC identify a set of characteristics to focus on ....which could be associated with paper, with a particular piece of software, with a particular type of relief claim or any other criteria they deem fit.

I can easily imagine that returns submitted via an accounted are trusted more than those done individually, as an accountant is less likely to miss or make errors, and would filter out invalid or suspect declarations.

It would not surprise me if the taxman maintains rankings of professional tax preparers i.e. some type of reputational rating based on prior experiences.

I always feel more comfortable having a respected accountant do my returns even though my returns are fairly simple these days.

[JohnB]

When HMRC accepted a paper return from me they made a big error in my favour...

[XFool]

On the substantive point, I have used the Government Gateway service for years and once it is set up it is very simple to access. I have no idea why the OP or the Guardian correspondent are getting so uptight about it.
Incidentally it is not just self employed citizens who are affected it is people like me (many of us here no doubt) who have to file a tax return each year. But as I say, very straightforward.
Dod

I entirely agree. The Gateway service is easy to set up and easy to use, not just for tax but for other govt. ops. It is a one-stop shop for access to UK govt. services (see https://www.gov.uk/log-in-register-hmrc-online-services)

That has been my experience too. However some people have apparently had subsequent problems when they tried to log on via GG, being asked for extra verification after logging in - see adjacent thread. The reason for this was, AFAIK, never established.

[XFool]

Re Scott's question my accountant told me that with paper returns only some of the data is populated, whereas with online returns it is all populated.

Assuming you are completing your return honestly, then the pages that are populated are the ones you need to fill in for your return, whether paper or online. How could it possibly be otherwise? If you have taxable dividends you will complete the paper pages for Dividends in the paper return, or the online Dividend pages if filing online. There are not two UK Tax regimes: one for people who file paper returns and another, different one for people who file online.

As an example, if there were taxation of dividends for online filing but no taxation of dividends for paper filing everyone with dividends would file paper returns. They don't.

Perhaps you need a new accountant? (Or you misunderstand what he means)

[Lootman]

Re Scott's question my accountant told me that with paper returns only some of the data is populated, whereas with online returns it is all populated.

Assuming you are completing your return honestly, then the pages that are populated are the ones you need to fill in for your return, whether paper or online. How could it possibly be otherwise? If you have taxable dividends you will complete the paper pages for Dividends in the paper return, or the online Dividend pages if filing online. There are not two UK Tax regimes: one for people who file paper returns and another, different one for people who file online.

As an example, if there were taxation of dividends for online filing but no taxation of dividends for paper filing everyone with dividends would file paper returns. They don't.

You misunderstood the point. The return is the same either way. What may matter is the difference between you directly entering each data item into HMRC's app versus the taxman using OCR to try and decipher your handwriting into usable data.

My accountant has 30 years experience, more than half of which was with HMRC. You are an anonymous poster on the internet. Wanna guess who I would rather believe? After all, you were the one who praises "experts", remember?

[XFool]

Assuming you are completing your return honestly, then the pages that are populated are the ones you need to fill in for your return, whether paper or online. How could it possibly be otherwise? If you have taxable dividends you will complete the paper pages for Dividends in the paper return, or the online Dividend pages if filing online. There are not two UK Tax regimes: one for people who file paper returns and another, different one for people who file online.

As an example, if there were taxation of dividends for online filing but no taxation of dividends for paper filing everyone with dividends would file paper returns. They don't.

You misunderstood the point. The return is the same either way.

Yes? So what then is "the point" - since the return being the same either way is just the very point I was making...

What may matter is the difference between you directly entering each data item into HMRC's app versus the taxman using OCR to try and decipher your handwriting into usable data.

It could well be - though I suspect they would be manually checked, and clarified if necessary, before being scanned. But this is surely a good reason for submitting online! Unless you believe that any such errors would always be in your favour. A rather optimistic assumption I would have thought.

My accountant has 30 years experience, more than half of which was with HMRC. You are an anonymous poster on the internet. Wanna guess who I would rather believe? After all, you were the one who praises "experts", remember?

Indeed I do. Until and unless one says something - or is reported as having said something - that seems to me to make no sense. That raises questions.

[Lootman]

What may matter is the difference between you directly entering each data item into HMRC's app versus the taxman using OCR to try and decipher your handwriting into usable data.

It could well be - though I suspect they would be manually checked, and clarified if necessary, before being scanned. But this is surely a good reason for submitting online! Unless you believe that any such errors would always be in your favour. A rather optimistic assumption I would have thought.

It would be random whether any such errors would be in your favour or not. But if you use an accountant then there should be no errors anyway, and I feel more strongly about that than about a paper versus online return.

My accountant has 30 years experience, more than half of which was with HMRC. You are an anonymous poster on the internet. Wanna guess who I would rather believe? After all, you were the one who praises "experts", remember?

Indeed I do. Until and unless one says something - or is reported as having said something - that seems to me to make no sense.

Ah OK, so the rule is "Believe an expert if they just happen to agree with you, but not otherwise"?

Why am I not shocked?

[XFool]

What may matter is the difference between you directly entering each data item into HMRC's app versus the taxman using OCR to try and decipher your handwriting into usable data.

It could well be - though I suspect they would be manually checked, and clarified if necessary, before being scanned. But this is surely a good reason for submitting online! Unless you believe that any such errors would always be in your favour. A rather optimistic assumption I would have thought.

It would be random whether any such errors would be in your favour or not. But if you use an accountant then there should be no errors anyway, and I feel more strongly about that than about a paper versus online return.

But you just said the "errors" would be in the scanning/OCR process! Not in the veracity of the filled in figures, or who wrote them in...

The return is the same either way. What may matter is the difference between you directly entering each data item into HMRC's app versus the taxman using OCR to try and decipher your handwriting into usable data.

My accountant has 30 years experience, more than half of which was with HMRC. You are an anonymous poster on the internet. Wanna guess who I would rather believe? After all, you were the one who praises "experts", remember?

Indeed I do. Until and unless one says something - or is reported as having said something - that seems to me to make no sense.

Ah OK, so the rule is "Believe an expert if they just happen to agree with you, but not otherwise"?

No. The "rule" is: What an expert says is going to be convincing and to make sense. If it (apparently) does not, then 'clarification' needs to be sought - as in this case. Though, in this case, clarification seems unlikely to be forthcoming.

Why am I not shocked?

I know I continue to be shocked...

[Lootman]

Ah OK, so the rule is "Believe an expert if they just happen to agree with you, but not otherwise"?

No. The "rule" is: What an expert says is going to be convincing and to make sense.

Then we agree. Experts should be listened to, except when they should not. But of course there is no objective measure to determine that. Just what you personally can make sense of.

[XFool]

Ah OK, so the rule is "Believe an expert if they just happen to agree with you, but not otherwise"?

No. The "rule" is: What an expert says is going to be convincing and to make sense.

Then we agree.

You 'forgot' the ending of that quote: "If it (apparently) does not, then 'clarification' needs to be sought - as in this case."

Experts should be listened to, except when they should not. But of course there is no objective measure to determine that. Just what you personally can make sense of.

Yes. Things making sense does seem to matter to me.

Clearly there are occasions when I can recognise things make no sense whatsoever...

[Lootman]

Ah OK, so the rule is "Believe an expert if they just happen to agree with you, but not otherwise"?

No. The "rule" is: What an expert says is going to be convincing and to make sense.

Then we agree. Experts should be listened to, except when they should not. But of course there is no objective measure to determine that. Just what you personally can make sense of.

Yes. Things making sense does seem to matter to me.

As long as you understand that the set of things that are true may vary from the set of things that make sense to you

[XFool]

Yes. Things making sense does seem to matter to me.

As long as you understand that the set of things that are true may vary from the set of things that make sense to you

Clearly there are occasions when I can recognise things make no sense whatsoever...

[Lootman]

Yes. Things making sense does seem to matter to me.

As long as you understand that the set of things that are true may vary from the set of things that make sense to you

Clearly there are occasions when I can recognise things make no sense whatsoever...

As can I