Blogger
Share this content
0
3
3129

CT41 and notification of trading start

Hi all,

Was hoping some of the boards experts might be able to give a bit of quick advice.

My company (http://www.techu.co.uk) started trading in July and we sent them the CT41 document, hence just before the 3 months deadline to inform them of this start.

Long story short, a couple of days ago it struck me that we had never received any acknowledgement to this being received, so I gave them a call and was told they had not received the form (carbon copy of what had happened some month earlier with CT41G dormant/no-trading insert when we sent!)

So now after a spot of Googling I find that I could be fined £300, and additionally £60 for each day over this 3 month deadline

So not quite sure how now to proceed?...any suggestion/advice greatly greatly appreciated.

Fi

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Technically, a fine could be exigible

In practice, it is not an automatic, computer-generated penalty like many others, but requires the manual raising of penalty by an Inspector.  This is contrasted with the 3 month deadline for an individual filing a form CWF1, under which a £100 penalty is commonplace (not sure if that is auto-generated, but it does seem to be be a policy in the absence of CF10).  I have never known of a single instance of a penalty being raised on a company for this particular breach (others may have a different experience).

What tends to happen is that unless and until a CT41G and/or dormancy supplementary notice is filed, HMRC assume that trade commences on the date of incorporation.  Provided that a CT return is actually filed by the due date, even if it differs from the expected accounting period, that seems to be the end of the matter.

Perhaps of more concern is whether your tax investigation fee protection insurers might look upon it as a compliance breach that invalidates insurance cover, or if the company intends to register for gross receipts under the CIS scheme for which it needs a squeaky clean compliance record.

Anyway, even if it is slightly late, I would recommend filing another copy of the form now.

With kind regards

Clint Westwood

Thanks (1)

Technically, a fine could be exigible

nogammonsinanundoubledgame wrote:

In practice, it is not an automatic, computer-generated penalty like many others, but requires the manual raising of penalty by an Inspector.  This is contrasted with the 3 month deadline for an individual filing a form CWF1, under which a £100 penalty is commonplace (not sure if that is auto-generated, but it does seem to be be a policy in the absence of CF10).  I hav never known of a single instance of a penalty being raised on a company for this particular breach (others may have a different experience).

What tends to happen is that unless and until a CT41G and/or dormancy supplementary notice is filed, HMRC assume that trade commences on the date of incorporation.  Provided that a CT return is actually filed by the due date, even if it differs from the expected accounting period, that seems to be the end of the matter.

Perhaps of more concern is whether your tax investigation fee protection insurers might look upon it as a compliance breach that invalidates insurance cover, or if the company intends to register for gross receipts under the CIS scheme for which it needs a squeaky clean compliance record.

Anyway, even if it is slightly late, I would recommend filing another copy of the form now.

With kind regards

Clint Westwood

 

Hi

Many thanks for the reply Clint, sounds like I have less to worry about that I may have first thought then..phew!!

On the CIS scheme, I understand this is for construction industry only so won't apply to us, and on the 'Tax Investigation Fee Protection Insurance'..er... I have never heard of this, and thus don't have it...should I have it? 

Fi ;-)

Thanks (1)

You are right - had I clicked on your link it would have been obvious that CIS did not apply.

The fee protection insurance would only really apply if you used a firm of accountants and sought to protect yourself from the professional fees that would arise in defending an investigation into your affairs by one of the branches of HMRC.  It is typically an optional service offered by the accountants whom you engage, at a modest annual cost (same with any principle of insurance really).  The costs of defending an investigation can be quite substantial and my recommendation would normally be to take it up if offered, but as I say it would only be provided by the accountants whom you engage - and not all provide the option.

With kind regards

Clint Westwood

Thanks (0)