Budget Documentation - who proof-read it?

polymaff

The quick-read here is the OOTLAR:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2020-overview-of-tax-legislation-and-rates-ootlar

but did anyone proof-read it?

Page 25:

"Dividend rate(3)... Tax year 2019-20...Tax year 2020-21", footnoted:

"(3) Apply to dividend income received above the £5,000 tax-free Dividend Allowance".

Page 26:

"Dividend allowance(9)" ... Tax year 2019-20...Tax year 2020-21", footnoted:

"(9) From April 2016, the new Dividend Allowance means that individuals will not have to pay tax on the first £5,000 of dividend income they receive."

I could go on...

unholyangel

The first mistake we make is assuming that just because someone has a certain job, that they have any clue on how to do it right.

Maybe in the future we'll elect representatives based on merit. Until then we're stuck with the circus & its monkeys. 

polymaff

Here's another cracker, this time a footnote to the Marriage Allowance Transfer data: OOTLAR p26.

"A spouse or civil partner who is not liable to income tax; or not liable at the higher or additional rates"

What is the relevance of the first condition "not liable to income tax" when all such candidates will be included in the second condition?

Simple. HMRC got it totally wrong from the start and stated the first condition only.  After an extended period of denial they accepted that MAT was available to a bigger group - but foolishly blustered that the extra cohort of tax-payers wouldn't benefit.  Wrong again.

To this day - as shown in the OOTLAR p26 - they still cannot bring themselves to delete the falsehood they initially published.  Wouldn't do to admit and correct an error, would it?

Forget elected representatives. This is the Civil Service getting it wrong.

Very pertinent to the current Rutnam / Patel issue

polymaff

Incidentally, from the latest MSE Money Tips:

"One of you must be a non-taxpayer"

Dear, oh dear.

[cue a reverse ferret re: making it simple to (mis)understand]

unholyangel

polymaff said:

Forget elected representatives. This is the Civil Service getting it wrong.

When they're bound by the law laid down by those representatives, you have to wonder how they ever get it right. 

For example, the law does indeed state a condition that the person transferring has to have a hypothetical net income below the personal allowance, but only if they meet the residence requirement by virtue of subsection 3 (basically anyone who isn't resident in the UK for tax purposes for that year). So that may well explain why they included the "not liable to income tax" part. 

ETA: What I mean is that it's not always easy to put into laymans terms something which requires a tier of courts to interpret with any accuracy. 

csgohan4

that would be nice to have 5k of tax free dividends, but sadly an error and not proof read

Mr87

polymaff said:

Here's another cracker, this time a footnote to the Marriage Allowance Transfer data: OOTLAR p26.

"A spouse or civil partner who is not liable to income tax; or not liable at the higher or additional rates"

What is the relevance of the first condition "not liable to income tax" when all such candidates will be included in the second condition?

Simple. HMRC got it totally wrong from the start and stated the first condition only.  After an extended period of denial they accepted that MAT was available to a bigger group - but foolishly blustered that the extra cohort of tax-payers wouldn't benefit.  Wrong again.

To this day - as shown in the OOTLAR p26 - they still cannot bring themselves to delete the falsehood they initially published.  Wouldn't do to admit and correct an error, would it?

Forget elected representatives. This is the Civil Service getting it wrong.

Very pertinent to the current Rutnam / Patel issue

I think that's an unfair caricature of the civil service. I have some personal experience of drafting public documents. When decisions are being made right to the wire (by politicians) and the team writing the document are not party to every minutiae of every policy decision, there is some referral to previous documents / text. Of course, it will get cleared by respective departments, but in the matter of hours, and legal departments are cut right to the bone, so not much chance of spotting everything. Footnotes are the inevitable casualty. Typesetting / proofreading functions no longer exist, so drafting is pretty much left to policy wonks. Cue result! 

polymaff

Mr87 said:

... When decisions are being made right to the wire (by politicians) and the team writing the document are not party to every minutiae of every policy decision, there is some referral to previous documents / text. Of course, it will get cleared by respective departments, but in the matter of hours, and legal departments are cut right to the bone, so not much chance of spotting everything. Footnotes are the inevitable casualty. Typesetting / proofreading functions no longer exist, so drafting is pretty much left to policy wonks. Cue result! 

These are not "right to the wire" examples. Not one of them.

Mr87

polymaff said:

Mr87 said:

... When decisions are being made right to the wire (by politicians) and the team writing the document are not party to every minutiae of every policy decision, there is some referral to previous documents / text. Of course, it will get cleared by respective departments, but in the matter of hours, and legal departments are cut right to the bone, so not much chance of spotting everything. Footnotes are the inevitable casualty. Typesetting / proofreading functions no longer exist, so drafting is pretty much left to policy wonks. Cue result! 

These are not "right to the wire" examples. Not one of them.

Perhaps not for the specific errors made, but the focus is (rightly) on new announcements / measures. The focus is on getting those new measures right, which then reduces time for cross checking detail of relevant (but ultimately, less important) details... such as footnotes. There is a knock on.

If errors in footnotes are the height of ineptitude, then any public body (or "even PLCs") that publish documents for public consumption are guilty of ineptitude. I am not aware of any public document that goes into any level of complexity that does not contain errors. You then jump to the "Rutnam / Patel issue" (a Home Office issue which will go to Employment Tribunal, which is completely unrelated to issues of competence in drafting a public document?). I'm afraid this reveals a general negative attitude towards public service. It is this point in particular that I am railing against. If you had instead specifically criticised Treasury officials, or HMRC, as part of some broader pattern of behaviour, I'm willing to hear arguments.

polymaff

unholyangel said:

For example, the law does indeed state a condition that the person transferring has to have a hypothetical net income below the personal allowance, but only if they meet the residence requirement by virtue of subsection 3 (basically anyone who isn't resident in the UK for tax purposes for that year). So that may well explain why they included the "not liable to income tax" part. 
ETA: What I mean is that it's not always easy to put into laymans terms something which requires a tier of courts to interpret with any accuracy. 

I suggested to a very senior officer in HMRC within days of their first description of their planned implementation of the legislation - in writing - that they'd got it wrong and that their error might be that they might not be differentiating the processes applicable to UK and non-UK tax-payers - and she acknowledged this as true, in writing.

Then, instead of doing the decent thing by withdrawing their faulty description of MAT they, as so often is the case in the Civil Service, just appended clauses, making the advice even more obscure.  And, blow me, this malarkey is STILL there years later, in the OOTLAR:

    "A spouse or civil partner who is not liable to income tax; or not liable at the higher or additional rates"

There's no excuse for this - and, frankly, no excuse for the pundits - several Lewises included - parrotting this nonsense.

I agree that is very difficult to write a document that is an easy read and yet doesn't tell a fib or two.  You may remember poor old MSE-Dan fielding this lament after the various MSE best energy scemes were pilloried in these forums.  It's the job they are paid to do, though.

polymaff

Mr87 said:

Perhaps not for the specific errors made, but the focus is (rightly) on new announcements / measures ...
If errors in footnotes are the height of ineptitude   ...

You then jump to the "Rutnam / Patel issue" (a Home Office issue which will go to Employment Tribunal, which is completely unrelated to issues of competence in drafting a public document ...

No, not in the OOTLAR - which is meant to be a pure statement of fact as at the publication date.

See above.

That might be how you interpret it.  Those who have followed the careers of both parties would understand the common, underlying, issues.