The trustee of a non taxable trust granted us trust register agent authority, using the URN.
The trust became taxable. We updated the register for this, as agent. This action also cancelled the agent authority.
After receiving the UTR, the trustee granted us authority again, with that UTR.
We queried this with HMRC, who responded “If you did the digital handshake on the URN reference, then changed it to a UTR reference, the authority is automatically cancelled, so you will need to do the digital handshake again using the UTR reference”
This was new to me, so I post it in case it is not widely known.
But also, I can’t understand why the system needs to cancel the original authority instead of flowing it through to the UTR. My suspicion is bad/lazy programming - but is there any sensible reason?
The last time I was involved with this stuff, over a year ago, and I think I used a paper 64-8, what with my being a Luddite analogue dinosaur and all. HMRC, or its AI robotic outreach server, has issued a dictat on Cybernautic Pravda https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-use-the-digital-handshake-to-get-authorised-as-a-tax-agent concerning the intersectional etiquette of handshakes, though no mention of being cautious, on the Square. or rolling up trousers.
I am curious that Chatbots still refer nostalgically to the shaking of hands, harking back to the quaint retrograde days of outmoded human contact.
Although I admire your luddism, Jack, your use of from 64-8 reminds me of Mr Praline being given a cat licence by the man from the cat detector van that was, in fact, a dog licence with the word ‘dog’ crossed out and ‘cat’ written in crayon.
I suspect that the problem is a mistake as HMRC also fail to mention it in these instructions:
Apparently HMRC are working on updating the TRS to allow taxable trusts that are no longer taxable to ‘reregister’ as non-taxable trusts. So, for the time being at least, the opposite problem doesn’t exist.
HMRC promise in their charter to keep to a minimum the compliance cost of ‘customers’.
I am intrigued, having never come across this document at all. We could do with more of these to prevent online procedures being so opaque. One could then be prepared better by having to hand information that is required, just as always prompted by a read through of a paper form and its notes.
I used to be a terminal sceptic about examples but I am now a convert. Back in the 17th century when I gave lectures I was dismissive of those (who were under the strange misapprehension that I was doing it for their benefit) who suggested examples, and even slides, might be helpful. But I was evangelised by Sch 2 Part 2 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (not 1674) and lament that we do not have more statutory examples, for which I commend HMRC Manuals and the GAAR.
I still distrust formulae e.g. s8D IHTA et seq. but this is based on a maths teacher of mine, Brother Peter. His trick was to pose the question “If I have 7 tables and 7 chairs, what’s the conclusion?”. Failure to answer correctly merited the strap, a “purposive construction” as now favoured by the judiciary. They employ it to discern the intention of Parliament whereas the De La Salle brothers were tuning in to the will of the Almighty. Sed quaere.
I have found the same, authorisation disappears as soon as the trust turns taxable. HMRC told me this should not happen, but I have seen it happen twice now.
I have another one i have just done so I will see if it happens again.