Two dormant companies which have never traded.
Dormant accounts filed on time at Cos House.
Previously HMRC would pick up on this and send out a letter saying we believe you are not trading so no CT600 needed. They now are raising £100 penalty notices and insisting on nil CT600's being filed. Two penalties because HMRC have these mad opening periods one of which is 365 days and the other is the surplus. Also had to write in and appeal penalties enclosing a copy of the dormant accounts. First appeal has been successful.
Anyone else experiencing similar? Is this a change of policy?
Replies (6)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
In order to charge penalties, HMRC must have issued a Notice to Deliver. Was this ignored?
And are you saying that HMRC have accepted an appeal in respect of only one of the accounting periods and are pursuing the other?
To be honest, I've never seen a letter from HMRC advising that they consider a company to be non-trading based only on filed accounts. Their default position has, as far as I am aware, always been that a company is active - and required to file returns - unless and until told otherwise.
You didn't answer my question, though - was the CT603 ignored?
Or you could, as I do, ask HMRC to confirm that no return is required while the company remains dormant.
If it is a dormant company then HMRC will not be interested in the submission of accounts but they have to be informed. So when a company becomes dormant I always send a letter telling them and saying that this will be the position for the future and I will, of course prepare accounts and submit should the situation change. They then make a note on their files BUT they also usually check every 5 years by sending a notice.
Re the year end dates - I always always shorten my clients years e.g set up 5 March they would normally expect 31 March accounts. I always make the first period from 5 march to 28 Feb and then this problem of 2 penalties wont arise.